pinklight,

I have something to add to my last comment. According to the exact words that the serpent choose to use after his question which is when he next lies to Eve he is CONTINUING to twist the command that God gave to Adam.

Amen! This is why God says that satan is the father of lies and there is no truth in him. Nothing he says is true.

Dave,

In regards to the law and the covenant. Abraham was considered righteous because he believed God, not because he kept the law…I believe Paul makes that clear in Romans. Speaking of Romans Paul makes it clear that the Gentiles (those without the Torah) have the law written on their hearts.

Excellent, I couldn’t have said it better than that! I thought the original comment was off topic so I ignored it, but you were able to give such a clear answer, I am glad you tackled it. You are fast becoming one of my favorite pastors of all time. I like the way you tackle these issues with less wordage than I. Maybe one day I will get it down to less than a thousand words!

Mark,
By the way, I just wanted to let you know that despite that little piece of uncharacteristic sarcasm of mine, I still like you! Got to give you credit for hanging in with us and reading over 200 comments! There might be a special crown in heaven for putting up with all of these egalitarians, eh?

Mark,

I bet by the time i write this something else has posted up. Its near impossible to keep up.

Yah, I know what you mean. I was gone for part of the day and I could hardly keep up too. I guess it doesn’t help that you are the lone complementarian commenting here. Maybe you could send in some of your seminary buddies. Have them watch the video clips and then put in their two cents worth. Or what is the Australia coins called?

i never accused YOU of being untrustworthy. In fact i asked if you deliberaterly or not mis-quoted them.

Mark, my friend, this is like me asking you if you beat up your wife accidentally or on purpose when you never laid a finger on her. You keep assuming that I misquoted CBMW when I did not. I have already told you that they consider a woman teaching men in her home as part of the prohibition from creation that includes teaching the body of Christ even in a woman’s home. Go ahead and ask them the questions and then we won’t need to go around this bush another time. The prohibition to them is not just about a “formal” gathering in a “formal” church building. It also includes the church meeting together for bible study in another place, at any time, for any reason. Is this clear enough?

From your response i would obviously say it was undeliberate. My reasoning was this, if it is a misquote the information is untrustworthy.

So as my quote is accurate then my information is trustworthy. Good enough.

PLease dont think i think your untrustworthy, far from it. I think your wrong on alot of things, but untrustworhty- definately not

Okay then. Glad to know that you see me as a worthwhile person who is not untrustworthy. But maybe I am just like Eve in that I can’t get my quotes down right??

Nah, Eve and I checked our sources. We both got it right. 😉

Mark,

I think you were a bit sneaky though now saying Eve was somehow like Mary after Jesus return being revealed something special- or being trusted or what ever you were trying to say there. Interestingly Noah also calls God Yahweh in 9:26
“Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem…”

Mark, I don’t think that you realize that such words like “sneaky” actually come across as judging my motives. I am not going to take offense but I can’t promise what will happen if I wake up on the wrong side of the bed 😉

As far as the prophecy of the seed of the woman, there are some commentators who connect Genesis 4:1 with Genesis 3:15 as Eve’s belief that her child was the promised seed. I will only quote one reference here along with Luther:

The closing phrase of v. 1, “with the LORD,” implies that this was a statement of faith by Eve based on Gen. 3:15. This is the first use of the name YHWH by itself. The next time it appears alone is in worship by the line of Seth in 4:26.
Vol. 1A: How it All Began: Genesis 1-11. Study Guide Commentary Series

See also Luther’s rendering of Genesis 4:1 as Eve saying that she had given birth to “a man Jehovah”. This is what I was referring and believe me that I was not being “sneaky”.

It is interesting that God allowed some of his faithful ones to know Him by His name. Noah being one and Eve being another. Very interesting especially because of the promise through the woman.

Let me explain a little how i understand this and the reference with Eve calling God LORD in Gen 4. If i’m reading you right, you are saying now after i have corrected you that God somehow also revealed his name to Eve before Moses. IF we take this line of reasoning we also find he revealed himself to Noah aswell. I don’t think God did that, let’s say i don’t read it that literary.

I have no problem being corrected when I am wrong. I hadn’t actually done a study on this one, but we know that without a Bible and without God’s revealing of Himself, one cannot know Him and His name. I am sorry that you don’t take the Bible as literally as I do. At least you cannot call me a liberal because of the high view of Scripture that I hold to.

Think about this. When was the ‘torah’ written? Moses wrote it after God had revealed his name to Moses. Now you rightly pointed out earlier that God had never revealed his name before then, so what’s going on here?

He had not revealed Himself by this name to Abraham, Isaac, etc but since we must allow Scripture to correct us, He did reveal Himself to Eve and Noah by His name.

I think Moses the author of these books is simply using the name Yahweh revealed to him and inserting it into the text that he is writing, so that we have references to Yahweh before Yahweh is even revealed.

Nah. That would be wrong to add it into a direct quote of Eve’s. If you can have a man noodle with quotes then what else has been noodled with by Moses. Nope, I don’t buy it.

I think this makes much more logical sense. Moses is simply using the name he knows when under the inspiration of the spirit is writing Genesis, therefore he can rightly insert it into the text.

Now you are claiming that the Holy Spirit put words into Eve’s mouth that she didn’t say? That the Holy Spirit is guilty of noodling with the text? No way. I don’t buy it. Honestly these are the kind of answers that I would expect to be credited to “liberal egalitarians”. Are you sure that you actually think that it is okay to noodle with the quotes and then blame God? Or are you just trying to pull my leg to see if I would agree with you and end up more liberal than I claim? I don’t hold to that kind of Scriptural addition. It is God’s Word. He said that we are not to add to His Word or take away from it. It is a very serious sin.

Now about Eve. I’m not charging her with sin before the fall. I believe the bible here that sin entered once they ate the fruit. So what am i to make of the verse in Proverbs that talks about adding to Gods words.
First of all we need to differentiate which words. Is it God’s actual spoken words? Is it his written words?

The Bible is God’s Word. The book of Revelation takes God’s prohibition and makes it apply to the entire book Rev. 22:18. It wasn’t just the quotes from God Himself but the entire book, which of course is God’s word.

What is the covenantal framework? Obeying God’s commands and live- disobey and be exiled basically? Therefore i think that proverbs here is referencing the written word of God, the ‘torah’ as this is the covenantally revealed ‘word of God’.

Are you seriously trying to say that it is perfectly okay to add to the words of the LORD God if He speaks to you, but not okay if someone writes His Word down??? You are kidding, right? Sounds like the hiss, “Did God actually say that you can’t add to His spoken word or did He really say that it is only His written word that you can’t add to?”

As far as getting into the covenantal theology, let’s leave that aside for this blog. It is outside the scope of this subject and I highly doubt that those theologians who believe in this brand of theology would be willing to sign on the dotted line to agree with you that men can add to God’s spoken words without God’s judgment. It comes across that God didn’t really care much for His spoken words just the ones that got written down. But when we see the 10 commandments given to Moses, we find that God spoke them and wrote them down showing that His speaking and His writing and equal. God’s Word is His Word.

So i see Eve as being described by the writer of Genesis, giving subtle grammatical hints at what was about to happen. She did not add to the word of God in terms of the proverbs verse because that must be understood covenantally.

That is the most creative disregard for God’s command in Proverbs that I have ever seen. Go ahead and tell this to God in the judgment. I am not planning to stand next to you in case you get a lightning bolt.

She was deceived by the serpent and led into sin. I do not see this as though women are somehow more easily deceived or anything like that. Eve simply chose to listen to her own desire rather than God’s.

Whew, at last some things that I can agree with! Thanks, Mark!!

Eve was indeed deceived by the serpent and in her deception she fell into sin. I am so glad that you don’t see women as more easily deceived because of the serpent lied to Eve.

However I don’t agree with this:

Eve simply chose to listen to her own desire rather than God’s.

Eve didn’t “listen” to her desire, she listened to the lie. This is the power of deception – it causes you to act in unbelief. Eve no longer believed God’s word and the lie now became the truth to her. It was not the lie or just her desire that made her eat. It was “the truth” that she now embraced. Funny how many cults call their religion “the truth”. It is the old satanic lie once again that takes deception and dresses it up as the truth to be held to and embraced.

Let me make one last point. I DO NOT SEE THE CHURCH AS ONLY A BUILDING. Is that clear enough for everybody.

Then what has a building got to do with the prohibition? Is your statement that the church is not “only a building” mean that the church is a building plus the people? Or is the church nothing to do with a building at all? Could you please clarify where a church building stands?

And also Cheryl, how can i be a traditionalist and a liberal. BY definition liberals reject tradition????

By definition liberals take texts that have no relation to symbolism and have no interpretation in the Scripture as symbolism and they wipe away the inspired Words of God. No longer is history historical and no longer are quotes, real quotes. They can be massaged and added to until they can are something other than God intended. The interpretation then is not God’s revelation but man’s guess what God was really getting at. Sort of inspired guesses which really lift up the Sovereignty of God (or not). Note, that was Canadian late night sarcasm. Hope you don’t mind. 🙂

Dave,

Also, if we only go with the command given to Adam, then why could Eve not eat of the fruit? It would be adding to the command to say Eve could not as it was only directed at Adam. Surely she had to have been told by God or at least God must have given further instructions to Adam to pass on that we are not told about. God never said to Adam to tell Eve about it, to tell Eve that she shouldn’t according to chapter 2.

Excellent point! If Mark wants to disavow any conversation that is not directly quoted by Moses, then he is in a conundrum since he has no direct command for Eve not to eat the fruit except for Eve’s testimony using the plural “you”. Puzzling indeed and a hole that I don’t see Mark climbing out of.

I was referring to Exodus 20 and Exodus 34. My point is that not all the commandments are the same. There are two new tablets and the covenant is renewed and some of the commands are the same, and there are 10 commands…but they are not all the same. So, was there something God said regarding the “law” that we are not told about? Or do we assume that Moses is decieved and got the second lot wrong? Or is there more info we do not have? Or is our understanding of the law fundamentally wrong?

Excellent point one that I will have to remember! Thanks!!!

As I cannot view the videos I can only involve myself in the conversation at a level that the discussion makes appropriate.

I do hope that you will get to watch them eventually. If there is something that I have missed responding to, then perhaps it will be pointed out to me.

Mark,

But let’s be honest, one cannot argue as Cheryl did in the video if she was wrong to begin with. That’s the truth of the matter. If she did mis-quote them, and im still waiting to here what Cheryl thinks about this, her argument is invalid and essentially untrustworthy.

If people really are interested in the ‘truth’ perhaps lets try and be honest when we make mistakes.

Mark I have suggested that you write CBMW and ask them if a woman is allowed to teach verse by verse or biblical doctrine to men in her own home. You have made reference to my own argument as untrustworthy and whether you meant it this way or not, you are accusing me of lying. I would think that if you are really interested in the truth that you would admit that you made a mistake in saying that what I claim is untrustworthy. I assume that you are a decent and godly brother in Christ so I also assume that you will be upfront and give a public apology when you get the information straight from the horses mouth. Thanks in advance for your consideration and your humility in admitting your mistake.

Mark,

so essentially you are saying that the command we have recorded given to Adam by God doesn’t really count, because at some other time which is not recorded, God gave them both another command which was similar to the first but with all this extra stuff?

Who said that God’s command to Adam doesn’t count? As far as the fruit permitted in the garden, the command to Adam allowed the exact same fruit as the command given to Adam and Eve.

I’m not sure whether Cheryl thinks this new command was given to both or to just Eve, perhaps she can comment?

Eve’s quote was the plural “you” so her testimony was that God spoke to both of them. It wasn’t a “new” command about what to eat. It was additional information about what they could eat outside the garden and the “old” command about what to eat and what not to eat spoken in a different way but which left the same fruit as permissible and the same fruit as not permissible as what was given to Adam.

Why do we even bother having the command given to Adam with such a view?

He needed to know what he could and couldn’t eat during the time that he was in the garden before Eve was created. If God had allowed Adam to eat from the forbidden tree without warning him and Adam died, whose fault would that have been?

This whole argument is based on theories of some conversation we do not even have recorded

You keep saying that the conversation was not recorded. That is not true. It is recorded by a female witness (Eve). The recorded words of God in chapter 1 are by a male witness (Moses). Some are willing to say that the male witness got the creation account wrong and some will only say that the female witness got it wrong. I choose to believe that God’s testimony by the record of the creation and fall is accurate as written down by Moses and spoken by Eve. I have yet to see any evidence that my faith in God’s record is wrong.

Lin,

Mark, if there is one thing I do know for a fact it is that most people do not really know what all CBMW is teaching. One reason is because many of their contributors teach in quite a few venues. And the list of legalisms for comp/pat is so long no one can keep up!

You have that one right!! Whew a long list indeed! The male headship in heaven really blew me away. But then it is consistent with the teaching that there are restrictions on women as long as men and women are descended from Adam and Eve. Since we will always be resurrected descendants from Adam and Eve, in essence they are teaching in RBMW that there are eternal restrictions on women. I just don’t get how godly brothers in Christ can swallow this and not see it as an addition to the Scriptures.

Mark,

Perhaps God did speak to Eve about it at another time, but there is no biblical record of that, so im more comfortable going with what’s there.

The problem with this Mark, is that the record is there through the female witness and in order to state that God did not speak to Eve at another time, one must accuse Eve of adding to God’s Word and/or completely distorting His Word. Are we allowed to accuse people of sin like this when God has not spoken about that alleged “sin”? I believe that this treads on dangerous territory and it sets a precedence that allows men to restrict women’s bible teaching when the Scripture does not give godly Christian women such restrictions.

Mark,
You said:

I think the greater weight of evidence lies in the ‘traditonal’ understanding of this scripture. The writer is subtly showing us how it was the Eve became deceived.

Mark, I wish you no disrespect, but you have not given any “evidence”. You have just repeated speculation about some “sins” of Eve’s that are not listed in the Scriptures. Speculation is not evidence no matter how much we would like it to be.

pinklight:

Mark, “different” is not the same thing as a contradiction. What Eve said God said does not contradict what God said to Adam when Adam was alone. What God said to both of them in Gen 1 also does not contradict what God said to Adam when he was alone. So that all three commands are different doesn’t matter.

Yes, exactly. Mark has yet to prove that different is the same as contradiction. There are examples of “different” accounts in the gospels of the same event, but apologists always agree that a “different” viewpoint is not the same thing as a contradiction. If we go by what Mark has told us about “different” then we would have to say that the gospels contradict one another because the accounts do not match. I don’t think so.

Mark,
You said:

You might think my view needs a Talmud, but all i am saying is this. Women should not teach in the gathered assemblies, it should be the resposiblilty of the pastor/elders who are to be men according to scripture. Seems pretty straight forward really.

This view contradicts Paul’s view in 1 Cor. 14 where in the “gathered assemblies” he gives women freedom to prophesy so that all may learn

Also nowhere does the Scripture say that only men may teach the assembly or that only pastors may teach the assembly of believers. In the list of gifts, the gift of teacher is not given only to men and nowhere does the Scripture say that men are not to learn from female teachers. While teaching may not be prophesying, prophesying certainly includes teaching. If you checked out my response to Mike Seaver, you will see the lexical proof that prophesying encompasses both teaching and preaching.

Now about Genesis 1, i am not ignoring it. God did speak to both of them about what they could eat. Chapter 2 however reveals what they can’t eat.

Chapter 1 also reveals what they cannot eat. They cannot eat from any tree that has fruit that is not seed bearing. This is prohibited in the way that God spoke it by removing this kind of fruit from the permission list. No permission given = prohibition.

We only have recorded that God spoke to Adam about what not to eat, so i’m following the bible here.

Really? How do you explain Genesis 2:16?

Gen 2:16 The LORD God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;
Gen 2:17 but …

You said:

It is most natural to assume Adam passed on the information to Eve.

How can it be “most natural” when Eve is quoted as telling us that “God said You shall not…” How is the plural term “you” a natural fit as coming from Adam?

. If Eve was given a ‘seperate’ command where is it recorded in the bible?

Genesis 3:2,3 It is her own testimony that is recorded in God’s inspired Word about God’s Word to both Adam and Eve.

Why is her command such a distortion from the one God gave to Adam?

It isn’t a distortion. It is additional information that never contradicts God’s original command given to Adam alone.

Anyone who supports Cheryl’s view here needs to reconcile these things.

I think that I have proven Eve’s correct witness. Now it is time for a challenge to you. Prove that God’s Words to Eve are not an addition but a contradiction to what was given to Adam. I think it is time to put your money where you mouth is. No disrespect meant, just a Canadian term for a request to prove your charge of sin.

If you really believe what you are saying it is contradictory. Why, because what Eve saids, is not actually what God said to Adam-it is different. So we cannot claim an argument on the plural ‘you’ because the supposed 2 seperate commands given to Adam and Eve are actually different.

“Different” is not a problem. Contradictory is. You have not proven that the words of God are contradictory. If “different” ways for God to say what is permissible for Adam to eat is not allowed, then please explain why God is not charged with being “different” i.e. contradictory in Genesis 1 where God adds the qualification that only fruit that has seeds may be eaten. Was he lying when he told Adam that he could eat the fruit from every tree in the garden except for one? Or is the different way of saying it the same thing i.e. only one tree had fruit without without seed therefore they were allowed to eat from every tree except for one?

It seems to me that you would have no problem with any of this if you did not have your stakes pinned on Eve misrepresenting God. Is there any other doctrines that you believe in that require Eve to misrepresent God and if you admit that Eve told the truth, then another doctrine would have to be discarded? I am very interested in understanding what causes you to hold to such an evil nature of the woman before sin entered the world. It seems to me that prejudice might not be the full reason if perhaps the “fall” of Eve before she ate the apple so ties into another doctrine that you cannot admit that you may be wrong. So I am asking if this belief of yours is tied into something else that I have not picked up on? What am I missing?

Pinklight,

Problem is Mark, the reason why she could not have misquoted God’s command given to Adam in Gen 2 is because when God speaks to Adam the “you” is singular and logicaly so. But when Eve quotes God she quotes God with the plural “you” since she is not quoting what God told Adam singularily as she wasn’t even created yet when God gave him the command, since there was no way for her to know what God commanded Adam. If she wanted to quote what God told Adam then she would of had to use the singular “you”. And the serpent did not even ask Eve what God commanded the man in the singular “you”. The serpent asked what God said about the both of them because the serpent too uses the plural “you”.

Excellent reasoning from the Scriptures! Bravo!! This is an excellent example of how one reasons from the inspired grammar and follows it through to its logical conclusion in the text.

Mark,
You said:

Also you must be the first person to ever call me a liberal…interesting?

There are egalitarians who are very liberal in their view of Genesis too. I happen to believe the Word of God as it is written and I believe that God inspired the words and the grammar for a reason. He said what He meant and if He meant something else He would have said it another way. While I understand that there are some who will not accept this, I believe that accepting God’s Word as literal unless the context shows that it means something else is a good way to keep from being deceived by those who want to twist God’s word. I sincerely do not want to be deceived.

Mark,
To continue on with your comments:

And, finally, she minimizes her privileges by proclaiming “we may eat” of the fruit of the trees; God had said that they “may eat freely” from the trees (again a double verb appears for emphasis).”

Again Eve was quoting from what God told her and God surely has the ability to say things in a different way. In fact when He tells Adam and Eve additional things that they can eat, He doesn’t say “eat freely” at all. God says:

Gen 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;

This is very different than how God gave His permission to Adam in chapter 2. There is no contradiction and to accuse Eve of being a false witness is a pretty serious thing. She was a witness of God and God never accused His witness so why should we?

She sees that the tree is “desirable”- the hebrew term used in the Ten Commandments of coveting

This is the deception that the woman was under. She was not “coveting” the fruit as if she was “coveting” something that was forbidden to her. She no longer believed that the fruit would cause her to die. Eve believed the lie that the fruit was good for her. She believed that it was permissible because it looked good. The test now was how it looked, not whether it had seeds or not. She was deceived.

Cheryl, do you really think that the hebrew grammar can actually support your view? The conversation between Eve and the serpent gives us a worldview into the situation. There are subtle hints of her early distortion of the word of God.

Yes, I believe that the Hebrew grammar supports my view because Eve speaks the truth before she is deceived into believing a lie. There is no proof of deception when Eve first speaks to the serpent. Mark, do you actually believe that Eve distorted God’s word and God failed to reprimand her for this distortion? Why do you think that God failed to prove her a liar?

Let me share with you something a great Anglican man shared with me over here. “If you come across a ‘new’ teaching you’ve either been revealed to something no-one else has ever seen or more likely the teaching is wrong”. Unfortunately i feel your teaching here falls in the later category.

Well, thanks for sharing that with me. The fact is, though, that the charges against Eve are what is “new”. Neither God nor Adam charged Eve with adding to God’s word. This is a “new” sin that is found in no version of the Bible. It is a faulty tradition that distorts God’s word and those who follow it have not thought through God’s requirements for the proof of sin. I feel that it is my obligation to speak the truth in love with those who have been deceived about false tradition. If I was the one who was in the wrong, I would sure like to be corrected. In fact I freely admitted that I was wrong in my understanding that Eve did not intimately know God’s name. In Genesis 4 it is clear from the text that she did know it. I, for one, am never ashamed to admit whenever there is evidence that I am wrong. After all, none of us is perfect. I believe that it is an honorable thing to admit to a misunderstanding when the Scriptures are there to correct us. I am wondering how willing complementarians are to admit their own misunderstanding?

Mark,

First, she exaggerates the prohibition. God never commanded that they not touch the fruit (3:3). Second, she omits the name of the tree, that is, the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

This is tradition. Just as God spoke additional things to Adam and Eve in chapter 1, God also identified the tree in a different way to Adam and Eve. He identified the specific tree to them by location. When God spoke to Adam, He did not identify the trees location. However just as pinklight has said, there is no contradiction at all in what God said. He said it in different ways and at different times, but the things that He said in chapter 1 and the things that He said to Adam and Eve that Eve quotes in chapter 3 do not contradict what God said to Adam in chapter 2.

Fourth, the woman minimizes the penalty by saying “lest you die”, when in fact God had said “you shall surely die” (there is a double verb in Hebrew not present in the woman’s statement).

The penalty is not minimized by God telling them both that they will die if they eat the fruit and not giving the double verb. Die is die whether it is said twice or once. This is faulty reasoning and I am surprised that those who understand logical fallacies would not be able to pick this up right away. Sometimes I wonder if intelligent men may be wanting to hear that Eve had all these faults and was not a good witness. It surely must make them feel that only men can represent God since a woman representing God will only get it wrong. But those who may feel this way have not thought about how these serious sins that they are charging Eve with are a serious misrepresentation of God’s that He must rebuke. The fact that God did not rebuke Eve and no apostle or Biblical writer mentioned these “sins” seems to bypass them. Is it possible that there are a lot of men who are inherently prejudiced against women without consciously knowing that they are inwardly prejudiced?

Mark,
You wrote:

Pinklight,

you brought up another good point. Eve saw it as desirable for gaining wisdom. She is listening to the lies of the serpent, edging closer to him and falling further from God. All before she even eats the fruit and becomes a ‘sinner’.

Being deceived is very serious but it is not a sin unless there is an action taken. When Eve was talking with the serpent, she was not yet deceived and in sin until she looked at the fruit and started to doubt God.

Remember that God told her that the food that was permissible for them was only the fruit that had seeds? Her deception gave birth to unbelief when she looked at the fruit and judged it “good for food” by looking at the outside. She did not test it by the life giving seed even once she disobeyed God by touching the fruit. She tested the fruit by the lie and she fell into transgression. When you place Eve’s sin further back by removing LORD from God’s name, or by adding to God’s words, you are judging her as a sinner before she ate the fruit. Tradition that is faulty will blind our minds from seeing the truth of God’s words and cause us to be in unbelief about the innocence of Eve as a witness for God.

Mark,
To carry on with your questions:

If you quote them wrong to begin with, your argument is hardly trustworthy nor persuasive. The whole approach to find a law in the Old Testament was not even relevant because they were not citing for such a law.

First of all, Mark, let me tell you that I do my homework. I went right to the source with CBMW. I also gave them a first run copy of the DVD set so that if they felt that I had not quoted them correctly then they could correct me before the DVDs were replicated. I received no such correction. I think that is an important point regarding my integrity. Are you willing to admit that it is a very honorable thing to go to the source and submit your work for their evaluation? There are lots of people these days who are unwilling to do that. I am not saying that everyone should. I am just saying that this is what I did. I think that you should be willing to commend me for that.

Also, I chose to send my DVDs to complementarians first before they were publicly released so that if they found errors that needed correcting, that I would be corrected by the opposition before I went public. The second anonymous Pastor that I quoted on my youtube videos was one that agreed to be one who would test me for errors. He thought that my work on the hard passages on women would be easy to blow off. He was very surprised at the quality of the work and as he said, it really stretched him. He was not able to poke holes in my argument and he felt that he needed help. He received 5 additional copies of the DVDs to give to his fellow pastors and theologians to see if they were able to help him refute the material. None of them had even a word of correction (they were all complementarians) and the common response that he got back was that the DVDs were well done.

Another complementarian pastor who helped me with the Greek was also concerned that I would be loving and kind to the opposition. I told him that I intended to treat my Christian brothers with respect and this comp pastor was the very first to receive the DVDs for a critique. This is what he wrote as a public recommendation for my DVDs:

The story of creation tells us that both man and woman were made in the image of God. All people are given intrinsic value in the miraculous act of creation, and all people are loved passionately by God, regardless of gender, race, age, education, economics, etc. However, though men and women are equal in value and purpose in God’s eyes, there are passages in the Bible that raise the question of whether or not God limits the roles that are available to women in a local church family. Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free examines this question in a thoughtful and persuasive way. Through clear, concise teaching and multimedia, this series provides an excellent presentation of the arguments in favor of a woman’s freedom to serve in all roles of Christian leadership according to God’s leading. Though I disagree with the theological conclusions of this series at several points, I found the series very helpful in understanding the issues involved from a different perspective. Without a doubt, the presentation is offered with tremendous respect, integrity, and grace.
-Dr. Scott Heine, Compass Church, Goodyear, Arizona

In private he told me that he was very glad that we had met and he considered me his friend. I have great respect for Dr. Heine and especially that he would be willing to let his name stand in a public way in support of the integrity of my work.

Mark,
You asked:

Now video 5,
Who exactly is the prosecution- JW or CBMW or both?

“Human tradition” is the real prosecution with the JW brand of tradition contributing all of the charges except the last one and with CBMW’s brand of tradition agreeing with the JW’s on some of the charges and adding the last charge of their own.

Now the first thing to note is in Acts 18 it is ‘they’ who explain to Apollos. I’m sure you don’t dispute that Cheryl but your video very much emphasised that it was Priscilla.

While most scholars believe that Priscilla was the main teacher of the two as Luke breaks tradition by listing her name first in Acts 18:26 where the corrective teaching is introduced, the fact that she is listed as a woman correcting and teaching a man is the key point that must be emphasized. If she knew the OT Scriptures forbid a woman from teaching a man (and no such law has been found in God’s law) she surely would not have taught Apollos. The fact that she was free to teach a man and correct his errors goes against CBMW’s rules that say that a woman cannot do things in a way that is teaching him. She has to be careful even in giving direction to a lost motorist in case she might be found teaching him.

The second thing I want to comment on has to do with the CBMW quote you used. I can’t speak entirely for them but I’m not sure if you understood it properly.

Well, I am glad that you realize that you can’t speak for them. I did have communication with them regarding the material that I put into my DVD set and they requested a review copy. They have never corrected me on the DVD or told me that I didn’t understand them properly. In fact in email communication they made it very clear that even in a home bible study a woman is not allowed to be the Bible teacher. She may comment at the study and she may even give her Bible views but she cannot be the Bible teacher.

I asked CBMW if a man can watch a woman teaching the bible on DVD and they said that he may watch her however he is not allowed to gather with his other male friends and watch a woman teaching on DVD because the would be seen as if she is their Bible teacher and this is forbidden by the Scriptures.

Since I have had direct communication with CBMW and have not been corrected on my understanding of their view, then perhaps it is you that misunderstands. CBMW restricts women far beyond being a pastor or elder. She may not be a Bible teacher to men even in her own home. Unless I misunderstood what you have written here on this blog, this would put CBMW and yourself at odds regarding women teaching Bible studies to men.

You entirely missed that the restriction is on the ‘ministry’ of the woman. They are not to teach a man doctrine or to exercise authority over a man IN A CHURCH. This is significant Cheryl; in fact it actually supports my view for understanding this passage.

Mark, what you fail to realize is that CBMW believes as we do that “church” is not necessarily in a building but wherever Christians gather together in Jesus name. We are the church. IT is not a building. They realize this so they forbid a woman from teaching other believers if they are male believers even if she is teaching them in her home and not in a church building. This is why they can easily say that a woman is not allowed to teach men in any place, at any time for any reason.

We would say that the teaching inappropriate for a woman is the teaching of men in settings or ways that dishonour the calling of men to bear the primary responsibility for teaching and leadership. This primary responsibility is to be carried by the pastors or elders.”

This is CBMW’s position. Women are not allowed to teach men in “settings” or “ways” that dishonor the calling of men to be the teachers and leaders. A “setting” of Bible study in a home is not allowed for a woman to teach men. She may facilitate the bible study by asking questions but she may not be the teaching of the study. If you think that your position that it is only in a “formal” setting in a church, then my friend, you are going to be very surprised. I recommend that you send them an email and ask them if a woman may teach the bible verse by verse to men in a bible study in her home. They will tell you that she is not allowed to be the bible teacher of a man even in her own home.

So I really do think you mis-quoted them. Therefore your whole approach seems wrong.

Mark, what are you going to do when you find out that I have not misquoted them and that they do forbid women from teaching the bible to men in a home setting? Are you going to do something about this or are you going to say nothing and let men restrict women’s teaching in ways that you do not believe the Bible restricts women? Are you willing to stand up and defend women bible teachers? Or are you going to be silent?

Mark,

Regarding whether or not she knew the term Yahweh is insignificant. Of course she didn’t, that wasn’t known till God revelaed his name to Moses. But none the less, the writer of Genesis is using it in the early chapters of Gen, and the ‘Lord’ is dropped first by the serpent, then by Eve. You need to better to reconcile this than just dismiss that Eve didn’t know the term.

First of all, I need to note that Abraham did not have the OT Bible so Genesis had not been written so God indeed was telling the truth when He said that He did not reveal His name to him. However I was wrong to think that God couldn’t have revealed himself to Eve this way and Mark you have pointed out a verse that I had not paid attention to – Genesis 4:1. It is clear from the Scriptures that Eve did have God’s revelation about His name as she used it in faith believing God that He was indeed going to bring the deliverer through her. It is an amazing thing for some that God would reveal His name to a woman when He had not revealed Himself by this name to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Amazing that a woman got this revelation and yet they did not!

But what about her calling him only “God” when the serpent talked to her? Is this showing that she was taking the side of the serpent against God? Of course not. It is an invalid point unless you want to claim that Moses was also taking the side of the serpent.

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Gen 1:3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.
Gen 1:4 God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

“LORD God” doesn’t even show up until Genesis 2:4. Up until then Moses just calls him “God”. Moses was not aligning himself against God or for the serpent by calling God as “God” and since Genesis is fully inspired, God apparently has no problem in inspiring this name for Himself.

It would be reading into the account that Eve was against God and siding with the serpent just by her calling God as “God”. There is no charge of sin for this and it is completely invalid.

No, she misquoted God by introducing the words “and you must not touch it”.

There is no claim in the Bible that this witness misquoted God. In fact requiring Adam and Eve not to touch the fruit was demanding an act of faith on their behalf because in chapter 1 God gives them permission to eat from every tree that has seed bearing fruit. That means that if the tree of the knowledge of good and evil had seed bearing fruit, then they were given permission to eat from it. But since God told them that they were not allowed to eat from this tree then they knew that it must not have seed bearing fruit yet they must not touch it to test the fruit themselves. They had to believe God that this fruit did not have life within it without testing to see if that was true.

Tradition says that women are not to be trusted as witnesses but God not only made Eve a witness (she gave God’s command not to touch the fruit), He also made women the first witnesses of the resurrection. It is an amazing thing that we can accept the women’s testimony of the resurrection yet so many of us fail to believe God’s first witness. We have been taught that Eve either lied or that arbitrarily added to His word (which is a serious sin) without any evidence that her testimony was found to be a lie by God Himself. We believe men’s tradition rather than God’s word. I think that it is time to believe God that He will find as liars those who add to His word and the fact that He did not find Eve to be a liar makes God the key witness that Eve was not a sinner before she ate the fruit.

Mark,

There have been a lot of comments here that I have missed since I was gone. I will try to catch up from here and there, maybe not in order.

First of all, you keeping saying things like:

Perhaps God did speak to Eve about it at another time, but there is no biblical record of that, so im more comfortable going with what’s there.

Why are you saying that there is no Biblical record of God talking to Eve? Just because it isn’t a narrator saying, “And God said…” doesn’t mean that we don’t have a record of the event. Eve quotes God directly using the words that He spoke to her. She used the term “you” (plural) instead of “we” or “us” as if it was Adam who passed on the command. Since her record of the event is the Biblical record unless her testimony is impugned by proper evidence that she is telling a lie, then we must accept that Eve told the truth and her quote of God’s words to her and Adam are the Biblical record of the event.

It appears to me that you have already indicted Eve for sin that has not been proven, which is exactly what the “court case” was about from my speech. All I am asking you for is the biblical evidence for her sin. I will shortly deal with the things that you have said that have nothing to do with sin.

By the way you did ask who were the two anonymous people who I quoted regarding comments on my DVD series. The first one was a Southern Baptist pastor who wrote me after seeing the DVDs and he was very convicted about the way that he had treated women. He repented of his attitude and felt that I needed to know.

The second quote was also from a pastor. This pastor is in a denomination that does not let women lead Bible studies where men are students. For him to make a public change of his position would have caused him to be removed from his position as pastor in the denomination. I have kept both pastor’s names out of the public realm as I do not want to cause either one of them trouble. They will need to make a move on their own and in their own time.

Oops this original comment went missing…

Okay, while Mark is watching the video clips, I am going to bow out for tonight. I have company coming tomorrow and yikes (!) my house isn’t clean yet. Naughty Cheryl needs to work into the night to prepare the food and clean the dust bunnies!

I will join you later tomorrow night or as I am able when my company leaves.

Blessings to all,
and to all a good night!
Cheryl

Ahhhhh, Mark, you dragged me back. My floor needs washing! But I only came back to look….

Here goes, and after this I really am leaving and turning off my computer so I don’t get tempted to look. 😉

1. Moses was the human author, but GOD Almighty wrote Genesis. It is not only inspired, but no one could know of the details of creation without a direct revelation of God. Just as God gave Moses the inspired order of creation and all the things that happened before Adam was on the earth, so He too gave him the inspired conversation with God’s direct quote given by Eve.

I guess you must be more on the liberal side, because I believe Genesis literally and I have seen the complete harmonization of Genesis creation account without contradiction and without error. I believe it and I believe God.

As far as Yahweh God, the serpent nor Eve could have used the term or else God was a liar. He said:

Exo 6:3 and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, LORD, I did not make Myself known to them.

No one knew the name YAHWEH until much later when God revealed it. If the serpent and Eve had quoted that Divine name then the worldly would have known him and the patriarchs would have known Him by this name. And then God would have been a liar. But the truth of the matter is that God didn’t reveal His name and if it was in the early part of Genesis it would have been an inaccurate addition.

2. She also adds “and you must not touch it”. Another subtle hint that Eve is further leaning toward the serpent rather than God.

There is not one piece of evidence that Eve added these words to what God said. How could she have been “leaning toward the serpent” since the serpent didn’t ask her if she was not allowed to touch the fruit?

3. The serpent tells her she will not surely die, and so then she eats and then becomes sinful, despite being decieved by the serpent.

Not only did Eve not add to God’s words, but God would have sinned if He had not disciplined her. He says that those who add to His words will be found a liar. Eve was not found a liar and those who say that she added to God’s words have not a single piece of evidence to prove this fact. If we charged people with sin with no evidence how can they be found guilty? It is a sin to add to God’s words so either Eve was guilty before she ate the fruit or she did not add to His words. Which will it be? There was no temptation to add to God’s words. She quoted Him and God did not call her to task for this serious “sin”.

Lastly you once again say that the serpent “dropped” God’s name of YHWH. This is simply not true. God had not given His name out so the talking serpent did not know it. Eve did not know it. It was God’s later revelation and so we cannot charge Eve with dropping the name “YHWH” when she clearly had never, ever heard that name before.

I hope that you will continue to listen to the end and take the challenge that I give. I am praying that God will do a work in your heart that I cannot do. His spirit can cause you to think about the inspired Scriptures and turn aside from faulty tradition that has no witness for the prosecution.

Okay, with that I am (really, really this time), over and out.

Warmly and with God’s great grace,
Cheryl

Mark,

I still don’t understand your position, but i will watch the video.

Bless you!

Mark,
You said:

I don’t have a problem with the Jewish context outlined by MacCarthur, but i fail to see how you can link this as a ‘church’ the same as Corinthians.

I didn’t say it was a “church”. I said that it was Jewish religious assembly. And my point is that if women did lead in these Jewish public assemblies and the Apostles were looking for such Jewish public assemblies and found one with the women leading, this is an excellent example that these women did not believe that God forbade them from leading in worship and the apostles did not correct them or reprimand them. You can agree with that, can’t you?

I’m happy to do exegesis for you, but i thought we were trying to discuss the videos? The issue remains that i have shown that these 2 texts are addressing a formal type setting, and no one has been able to show otherwise from these texts.

My video clips do not talk about “formal” settings and your term has not been defined by the context since you haven’t discussed an exegesis of the passage. Perhaps we can do that later.

Go ahead and review the next clip and we can move on.

Mark, Mark, Mark, what are we to do with you?

No, she misquoted God by introducing the words “and you must not touch it”.

My friend, no one, not a single soul in the Bible said that Eve misquoted God. That is not true. She quoted God accurately and God did not correct either a lie or a misquote. There is no evidence at all that this was a misquote. It is a faulty tradition in the church.

If you could just finish listening to the rest of the clips, I think you will have a larger context of the proof. Are you game? Oh my goodness, or can you only take a little bit of me at a time? 😉

I would think that if you can read what I text, you can listen too. Go ahead and finish listening.

I think also you missed my point. In 3:2 she tells the serpent what we see in Gen 1:29, but then introduces verse 3 with “but God did say”… Did God not say what was in verse 2?

Verse two is a paraphrase because Eve says “we”. But then she changes to the direct quote and says “you”. If she was quoting Adam she would say “we may not touch the fruit”, but the exact quote is ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'”

God said “You”, Eve’s first paraphrase says “we”. The quote comes exactly at the spot where Eve said “God said”. Does this clear things up?

OF course he did, but that subtle “but God did say” which was actually NOT what God did say is something significant.

God did say that they may eat from everything tree in the garden that had fruit that bears seeds. Every tree. The only tree that she couldn’t eat from was the one which had fruit which didn’t bear seeds. The one without life in it. But they were not to test that fruit. They had to take God by faith that this one tree did not have fruit with seeds in it.

But none the less, the writer of Genesis is using it in the early chapters of Gen, and the ‘Lord’ is dropped first by the serpent, then by Eve. You need to better to reconcile this than just dismiss that Eve didn’t know the term.

The writer of Genesis knew God as Yahweh. But there is nothing wrong in calling God as “God”. Unless you can show where this wasn’t allowed. God did not blame Eve for calling him “God” so I think this one has fallen to the ground too. Let’s not make an issue of something that God fails to make an issue of.

Okay, on to the next comment.

Mark,

So you believe Cheryl that God gave Eve some ‘extra’ information, is this correct? Can you explain more for me what you mean by this.

Sure. Thanks for asking!

In chapter 2 God spoke to Adam directly and told him that he could eat the fruit from any tree except for one.

One of the new things is in chapter 1 when God spoke to both Adam and Eve, He gave the additional information that they could eat from every plant on the face of the earth that had that yields seeds in addition to the fruit from the trees that yielded seeds. He did not say these things to Adam originally but added these things when they were together.

This is barely worth commenting on because you know this is not what i believe.

Actually I don’t know you well enough to know what you do and don’t believe about Genesis. But thanks for educating me, I always appreciate these discussions!

God gives instructions to 1 person all the time, to pass on to others i.e preaching, prophecy, toungues

I don’t think that God only speaks to one person. It is already proven that God spoke to Eve in Genesis 1 so the issue is whether he gave her the full meal deal or kept her in the dark about what she couldn’t eat. If you move on to clip number 4, I won’t have to type so much! 😉

Mark, I am glad that you are still keeping up with us! Again, I think it would be good to do clips 3 & 4 together.

Is it not legitimate for Eve to say “God said” if it was Adam who told her what God said- i don’t think so, it is still God saying it.

The grammar would have to change for that. The way the inspired text is written, Eve is quoting God directly. If Adam had told her what God said, how would she be able to quote God directly? Rather she would have said, “God told Adam” or “Adam said” but she certainly could not quote God is God had not spoken directly to her. It isn’t possible for the grammar to add in an intermediary in the mix. It is a direct quote.

She is not lying if Adam told her what God said. You are disregarding this possiblity. It could be equally true and not make Eve a liar nor make her a sinner before the fall.

But God didn’t say this to Adam in chapter 2. Did Adam lie? Or did God tell them both what they could and couldn’t eat in chapter 1? If He told them both, just as the told the both additional things that they could eat, it would not be necessary for Adam to tell Eve because she was there too to hear God.

The most natural flow of the passage is that God spoke to Eve directly at the time when He told them both additions on what they could eat. There is no natural flow that would create an indirect quote from God through Adam. The grammar won’t allow that.

Why is it so easy for you to have God give Adam additional information than what is quoted in chapter 2 but not have God also give Eve this information? Is it possible that you have a little bit of prejudice towards the woman thinking that Adam alone deserved to hear the command directly from God and Eve did not?

On to the next comment.

Mark,
You said:

your comment #137 is a whole lot of assumptions which is not in the text of Acts 16. Frankly i don’t see how you read out of Acts 16 that women were aloud to bring forth the word of God. Also i don’t see how that has any connection to what Paul is addressing in 1 Cor 14.

Actually I quoted from John MacArthur, a complementarian, in his MacArthur Study Bible and he gave the exact same interpretation as I did. I am wondering if you have a problem with having a complementarian agree with me that women were reading and commenting on the Bible in a public Jewish assembly?

Now I understand that you may not like that. Sure, that’s fine. But when a complementarian agrees that this is what is going on in a public Jewish assembly, you might want to think about why you are threatened by that. Neither John nor I are claiming that it was a Christian assembly by the river. But it was a public gathering where women were leading in prayer and bible reading.

Frankly i have shown why i believe a woman should not preach in the church. I’m not really sure what else you expect of me to show.

You have given us your opinion. What I would actually like is a verse by verse exegesis of the passage that shows where you get your view from in the context. I don’t have a hard time doing that. I do it all the time and I trust the Scriptures.

It is okay if you don’t want to do that. I am not going to push you, but perhaps you could just tell us that you decline to exegete the passage for us.

Mark,

Perhaps this is deliberately done by the author to emphasise a point. I noticed you didn’t discuss this in the video Cheryl. Should we assume in your view Cheryl that God didn’t say what Eve quotes in verse 2?

Mark I think you misunderstand me again. I am not saying that God didn’t say those words to Eve. I am saying that Eve quoted God. She didn’t paraphrase Him by saying “God told me” she simply said “God said” and she quoted exactly what he told her. I believe her. Do you have any reason to charge Eve with sin. I think that you should have a look at clip number 4 to get the full picture. It may clear up any misunderstanding that you may have about what I am claiming.

It is also interesting that Eve follows the serpents lead by referring to Yahweh as ‘God’, not ‘Lord God’. Is this perhaps another subtle insight by the writer? Maybe it is discussed in later videos and i’m getting ahead of myself.

God wasn’t called by Yahweh God until much later in the history of mankind. Eve did not know this term.

Mark,
You said:

According to Gen 2 only Adam was instructed about the tree. IN gen 3 we know that Eve knew the command so we either must think Adam told her, or God told her. According to Cheryl’s video she believes God told her. Perhaps this could be true but is this not also an argument from silence, as the bible NEVER tells us that God spoke directly to Eve about the command.

How could this be an argument from silence since Eve said “God said”. It would certainly be an argument from silence if you believe that “Adam said” because no one refers to that. But “God said” is either the truth and God indeed did tell her, or she lied. Which do you prefer? If she lied, for what reason did she lie? Who tempted her to lie? Why wasn’t she corrected by God?

Perhaps this could be true

It is the ONLY evidence that we have about who told Eve. I think that it is wise to believe Eve.

the bible NEVER tells us that God spoke directly to Eve about the command.

That is not true. What you perhaps mean is that God isn’t quoted directly. He is quoted indirectly and this is good enough to say that God spoke to Eve.

No where does Gen tell us that God commanded Eve…. about not eating the fruit. The natural flow of the passage is to assume it was Adam who instructed her.

If God would have told her only the exact same food to eat as He told Adam (He spoke to her and gave her additional foods to eat in addition to what He had said to Adam), and we ignored Eve’s claim that God said, there is still the problem of the additional information that God gave to Eve that is not directly quoted to Adam in chapter 2. Either “God said” this to Eve just as He also spoke to them both and gave them additional foods to eat outside of what He gave to Adam or Eve is a liar because there is no evidence that Adam told Eve that she couldn’t touch the fruit. But Eve said “God said” and I believe her.

The natural flow of the passage is to assume it was Adam who instructed her.

It isn’t natural at all unless one assumes that God wouldn’t stoop to speak to a woman. And we would also have to assume that Eve lied. I don’t think that this is the natural flow of the passage because it would be really hard to prove that Eve sinned before she ate the fruit.

Adam simply told Eve what God had told him. So i agree with the JW’s that is was more probable that Adam was the one who told Eve, but again i wouldn’t push the significance of this too far as the JW’s seem to have done. I wouldn’t say that God only communicated with the man.

You are giving me your opinion, but you will have to deal with the fact of the additional instruction by God and where this came from because it isn’t quoted in chapter 2. I am very grateful that you admit that God only communicated with the man. Now with admitting this fact, can you see any reason why God would directly tell Eve what she could eat but fail to tell her what she could not eat?

Okay I am going to start another comment here so that this one isn’t too long.

129 Mark,

You said:

Again you are playing semantic games with my words. If you have any legitimate claim to show that there is no difference between Pauls letters and Acts 16 for example please provide.

The difference between the assembly is that one is a Jewish assembly where the people needed the gospel preached to them and the other assembly of believers need the ministry of the body.

I don’t understand your attributing to me “semantic games”. However I do appreciate your challenge to prove that there was an assembly of (Jewish) believers in Acts 16.

Acts 16:13 (NASB) And on athe Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled.

The fact is that the apostles had presuppositions. Their presupposition was that whenever there was no quota for a establish Jewish synogague, there would be a public meeting where the Jews would meet together for prayer and the reading of the Torah. This public meeting would be at a place outside of the city but also at a public place.

John MacArthur, who is a strong complementarian, records these observations in his MacArthur Study Bible:

16:13 to the riverside. Evidently, the Jewish community did not have the minimum of 10 Jewish men who were heads of households required to form a synagogue. In such cases, a place of prayer under the open sky and near a river or sea was adopted as a meeting place. Most likely this spot was located where the road leading out of the city crossed the Gangites River. women who met there. In further evidence of the small number of Jewish men, it was women who met to pray, read from the OT law, and discuss what they read.

Prayer, reading of the bible, and biblical discussion were considered a proper Jewish assembly although it was an unathorized synagogue since it was only women without 10 qualified men to establish a Synagogue. So it was a bonafide outdoor assembly of believers (Jewish ones who apparently feared God since they accepted the gospel).

Since the Jewish people were used to these kinds of assemblies and the Christians were mostly Jews in the beginning, it would have been logical for them to meet just as they did before for assemblies of believers with the women praying, reading the Word and giving their discussions on that Word. Paul also gave women the right to speak forth concerning the Word of God in these assemblies. He never forbid women to speak God’s Word.

Since you, yourself, have said that 1 Cor. 14 is a formal gathering of the church and since the women were allowed to speak forth the Word of God, what do you base your reasoning that women may not give a verse by verse explanation of God’s word in the assembly?

I agree with Dave that I have yet to see you actually get into the text and use it to give your reasoning. You see to want to remain with generalizations while we are digging into the text. Is there a reason for your hesitation? Is your conscience perhaps bothering you that if you discuss a particular text and listen to our (women’s) interpretation that you might be sinning?