Perfectly fine to advertise Pastor Dave! I just added a comment myself and encourage others to do so.

Thanks, Andy! Great comments!!

124 Lin,

I wonder if I was told all my life I had preeminance for simply being a woman if I would want to give it up? We can all fall into these traps….but our Lord teaches us service to others, being a bondservant to Him and giving up our rights

This really hit the nail on the head, Lin. If we have been groomed for a “privileged position” would any of us give it up so easy. I would like to think that I would hold to the Truth rather than a false privilege, but maybe I could be deceived by pride too. I want to be cautious about this because I have made it a vital part of my spiritual life to love truth more than anything. But I can see how this could be very challenging to give up. We do like to feel like we are special people and privilege is certainly “special”.

Mark,
I have just been reading through some of the past comments and I would like to make one important comment for the benefit of my readers. I think it would be wise to see those who comment here as sincere Christians who have come to their point of view honestly and with integrity in reading the Scriptures. I understand where they differ in their interpretations from what you believe, but I think it wise not to call their position a half-truth as if they are lying about the facts. I do agree that if someone is deliberately altering the facts and lying about it, it is good to expose that, but I don’t think that anyone is doing that here. I believe we should give people the benefit of the doubt about their motives as being honest and sincere and argue our own position from that stand point.

As far as Grudem goes he appears to know the historical evidence but for one reason or another he has chosen to give the evidence in such a way that his honesty appears in question. That bothers me a great deal.

It is the same thing with Bruce Ware who teaches on the eternal subordination of the Son, so insistent on putting women in their place that he has lowered Jesus so that He is no longer deserving of the highest praise, the highest honor, or equal authority with the Father so that it is not allowed for us to pray to Him. I have discussed this with Bruce Ware through emails and frankly it didn’t leave a good taste in my mouth. I feel the same way about what Grudem is doing. But Ware and Grudem are not posting on my blog. If they were, I would have to be very frank and tell them that what they are doing is wrong. It is possible to be a complementarian without downgrading Jesus. I embrace my complementarian brothers and sisters in Christ, but I am not so happy with those who deliberately lower Jesus when the Scripture is clear that He is to have equal honor with the Father.

Mark, I also know what it is like to be especially busy. I hope that you are able to continue to work on answering the questions here as it can be very helpful for us to understand a complementarian mindset.

My full permission to advertise the good stuff!

I would also recommend that when Neo posts another revision to his article that he notifies me here so that I can promptly address his concerns.

Thanks Neo!

From reading Neopatriarch’s post, I can see that some there are admitting that Neopatriarch is indeed the “Chris” the complementarian that used to post here. Neo writes:

BTW, Schatz has misunderstood my position since she believes I’m making the salvation of any woman dependent on all women continuing in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control. I believe Kostenberger has the right view on this in his paper ““Saved Through Childbearing? A Fresh Look at 1 Timothy 2:15 Points to Protection from Satan’s Deception” (see reference #7 in my post). Please read my references so you can better understand my position on this.

Ironically, it seems that Schatz’s view is more vulnerable to this criticism than mine is. Schatz would have the salvation of that one specific woman dependent on the one specific man or perhaps the woman’s husband. In either case, the woman’s salvation through the Messiah is dependent on someone else.

The “normal” interpretation of sozo is biblical salvation not safety from deception. While Neo appears to agree with Andreas Köstenberger that any women who stays within her proper function as wife and mother in the home will be kept safe from deception, this view makes God out to be an unfaithful one who does not keep his promises since many, many women who have stayed home with their children have fallen prey to the deception of the door-knocking Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Since my believe that the “they” is the woman herself and her husband, it is natural that his help in getting his wife away from the deception and into sound doctrine will be a part of her road to salvation. This is not a “problem” as Neopatriarch says it is. It is a natural interpretation that fits within the complete context of deception and the deceived teachers.

Neopatriarch now says that he may revise his article one more time. Good for him. I hope he does for his article has many holes in it and I have soundly refuted his latest attempt. I am eager to hear how he will try once again to present a view without holes and attempt once again to refute my exegesis. No doubt I will have another “good try” award for him should he care to try once again.

Thanks TL for the warm hugs!!!

Do you know that there seems so many comps who are not willing to dialog that it seems to be a pattern. Well, name-calling and accusing isn’t a “dialog” in my books. So it is wonderful to have Mark here. I wish I could glue his feet to this blog floor so he stays for a long time. 😉

Dave,
It is nice to be missed! Feels like a warm hug.

Great idea, Dave! Yes, I would welcome Mark to email me his paper and I would be happy to post it as a comp view that we can discuss.

To Mark: If you are willing, I would be happy to post your paper and that way give it a fair hearing. Email me when you have the time and you can be the very first comp guest poster. I guess that would make you a poster boy for the comp position, eh? And an Aussie poster at that! It is always a privilege to dialog this way because there is so much to learn and hearing the opposition challenges us to first understand and then respectfully dialog so that we can help all understand God’s Word better.

Kay,
Yes, it was extremely hurtful. It took a few years for the pain to subside because rejection isn’t an easy thing. And being rejected for being female (something I can’t do anything about) and following the Lord’s calling (something I must always obey as a disciple of Christ) was difficult to comprehend. At the time I did not understand how someone could hold to the thought of male privilege and refuse to discuss it and reject me without considering me worthy enough to be heard.

After he broke fellowship with me, he went on to start his own church. It appears that he enjoys being called “pastor” even though he knows that this is not one of his gifts and he had admitted many times to me in the past that he does not have a pastor’s heart. But then there is that male trump card that gives him the privilege of doing anything he wants without question. And me? I took all the research that I had done but which he didn’t want to read and I put it into my WIM DVD set. What was meant to help him and his wife is being used today to reach not just one couple, but the entire church. How can I be sad about that? Yet I still have some sadness that there is such an ungodly division over the freedom for women to serve with the gifts that the Holy Spirit has given them. Apparently some men think that their trump card trumps even the Holy Spirit.

“Egalitarians argue that there is no creation order in Gen,”

I will second gengwall’s comment of “nonsense”.

Egalitarians do not argue that there is no “creation order”. They merely state that there is no hierarchy or authority of one human over another attached to the “creation order”. Those who say that there is indeed an “authority over” or hierarchy taught in this passage are the ones who need to prove their point.

I think that it is also good to note here that Biblical egalitarians hold tightly to the Scriptures as inspired. We are not the ones who are insisting in a view that adds to the text. I, for one, am most interested in understanding what the text says and what it doesn’t say so that we stay away from proof texts that are ripped from their contexts.

I also am very interested in how a complementarian thinks about these matters. I am especially interested in how he or she can join with us in holding tight to the inspired text yet be oblivious to the inspired context surrounding the hard verses on women.

I was just re-reading an email that I got in early 2008 from an old friend who removed his friendship from me because of the women’s issue. It is obvious that his gender-related “authority” to demand obedience to his view and silence my opinion is a trump card that is almost impossible to give up without the grace of God. I am again reminded that the male trump card has harmed many relationships and separated friends. It is a “my way or the highway” attitude that discredits the image of God within God’s female “sons”. The body of Christ is greatly harmed by this mindset. We will all keep in this state of hurt until we come to the full knowledge of God’s Son who brings us together in unity and equality as co-heirs of God’s grace. I long for the day when we are truly united without prejudice.

Kay,
No need to apologize. I think that your questions are worthy of being asked and your point is well taken. And thanks for the welcome back! These posts have been so busy, I didn’t think anyone missed me at all 😉

pinklight,
You said:

I would like to be pointed to one word written by Paul in 1 Co 11 about Adam being created first and then Eve – “creation order”. All I can precisley read are words like “from” and “for” specificaly talking about “origin” not “order”.

Excellent observation! If Paul is talking about “origin” we should not changing this to “order” as if the man was in charge of the woman. For those who want to let the text speak for itself, verse 10 points to the woman’s right to have authority to make her own decision. If we want to be honest, we cannot twist the word for “authority” here that always gives the person themselves the right to action and never is used to describe a position of the subject “under authority”.

Ah, “Mark the complementarian” is sure popular here! What a pleasure to have a complementarian visit my blog and be a part of the conversation. I think this is helpful and it sure does stir up the mix.

Well, folks, I am back. I haven’t had a chance to read most of the comments yet as I have been suffering from jet lag, trying to keep from getting my husband’s cold and trying hard to catch up with all the ministry emails that I missed. I will comment as I am able.

I appreciate Lin giving a plug for my DVDs and my work on 1 Cor. 11 (see my side bar). Mark seems to think that 1 Cor. 11 is a slam dunk for the preeminence of the man with the woman having a secondary function, but this is the opposite of what the passage says. I won’t go into the passage at length but here are a few comments.

1 Cor 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.

What many people miss in this passage is that it is only the man who has a restriction, not the woman. This is because the man has a simple mandate “image and glory of God” while the woman has a more complex mandate with “image and glory of God” AND “image and glory of man”. The bottom line is that “image and glory of…” empowers humans. It is not a term of subordination to limit one’s function.

This means that “image and glory of God” frees humans to bring glory to God by operating in the authority as an image bearer. As the “image and glory of God” we are to show forth that glory and not hide it. The fact that we have been forgiven of our sins and Jesus has bore the shame of our sin, allows us to shine forth His glory. The covering which was meant to cover the shame of our sin is to be removed. If we keep the covering as if we still bear the shame of our sin, then we shame Jesus who paid a great price to take away our sin and the shame of our sin.

The woman too was to appear with a covering because Jesus also took away the shame of her sin, but since she bears the glory of two and not just one, (she shines the glory of both God and the man) Paul allows her to choose to keep the covering if it would bring shame to her husband. Her position was greater than the man’s position in that she was allowed to make her own decision, while the men were forbidden from wearing the covering of shame.

1 Cor 11:10 Therefore the woman ought to have (a symbol of) authority on her head, because of the angels.

The term “a symbol of” is not in the text and this addition distorts the meaning of the text. The woman, Paul says, must have the right and authority to make her own decision because of her up-coming position as judge of the angels. (1 Cor. 6:2, 3).

This passage in no way limits women, but connects the dual nature of the woman’s glory to the freedom for her to take her authority to make a godly decision. Here Paul emphasizes the equality of men and women as joint-heirs in the next life where women will stand side by side with the men in judging the world and the angels. In her position as ruler and judge (as an equal image bearer of God) she is not subordinate to men but fully equal in showing forth her place as image bearer as she is both the glory of God and the glory of the man.

Does this make sense, Mark? Do you have any questions about the importance of the equality of the woman which is highlighted in 1 Cor. 11?

TL,
Not a problem with all the links. Unfortunately my blog spam-catcher can’t discern between the good links and the bad ones. And I am just going to bed now so your comments could have stayed in the moderation box for awhile while we are heading home.

TL,
Your comment got stuck in my moderation box as it had lots of links. I rescued it! 🙂

Andy,
Sorry it took so long to get your comment out of moderation. Usually comments are not moderated after the first comment, but for some reason your second comment went into my moderation box. I am out of the country right now on a ministry trip so I am slower than usual in getting to the comments.

Hi TL,

The script and research is Lorri MacGregor’s and not mine but yes, the individuals are Word Faith proponents. Not all of them are featured in clips in the DVD, but some are. The off-base doctrines that are the most serious are the doctrine of who Jesus is and on the resurrection.

okay now I am curious. What does “Aussie Aussie Aussie oi oi oi” mean? Sounds like a “you go girl” kind of anthem??

Hey guys! Just popping in for a minute tonight. I didn’t sleep much last night and I have a big day tomorrow so early to bed.

gengwall,
I have no issues with allowing the conversation to be about marriage. My brain just thinks ministry first and foremost and I have to concentrate to make it think anything else. Does that qualify as a calling into ministry for me 😉

Mark,

Again i say… AUSSIE AUSSIE AUSSIE, OI OI OI !!!!!!! What is clear i think is that Australians are by far the greater of God’s creations- in fact i think it has been re-named the ‘Land of Canaan’.

Oh boy! (As she rolls her eyes!) I think I am being taken over by the Aussies. Wonderful, actually. Just as long as you allow me to have a word in edgewise once in a while 🙂

That’s all I can contribute for tonight. Go Mark, go gengwall, go pinklight, Kay, Dave, TL, Lin and anyone else my tired brain missed.

Good night from Pennsylvania.

Andy,
Welcome to my blog 🙂 What a powerful testimony you have!

You said:

If authenteo in the Greek meant authority, why didn’t Paul use it in 1Tim. 2:2, just a few verses up? “Kings and all those in authority”

Excellent observation!!

I will be the first comment here. I want to especially thank Mark for his gracious attitude and willingness to dialog with egalitarians. I have sincerely enjoyed responding to his comments and I have created this new post so that we can carry on with the discussion.

I would suggest that those who read the comments under this post would also be greatly benefited to read the original post and comments to get a good understanding of what has already been said. If you are unable to do so, please feel free to comment here on whether male and female have different functions in the body of Christ. I am away for a few more days on a conference trip, but will be back in the office (overwhelmed as usual, I am sure 🙂 ) by Wednesday.

This post has really grown to a huge amount of comments. I think that it will be helpful to continue the comments on another post. I have created a new post so that those who are new to my blog can find our current discussion listed under a current post. Here is where I am asking everyone to put their new comments so that we can all be on one page with anyone new visiting http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/10/16/do-the-genders-have-different-functions/

So Mark, you are special! You get a new page dedicated to discussions with Mark on different functions in the body of Christ. I think that this has been a wonderful discussion so far and I look forward to all the other comments that will be posted at the new location. When I do get major time to comment on the old posts I will put the comments on the new post too.

Mark,

I like the way that pinklight said this:

“Roles/functions” (like guarding the garden and being a help) don’t matter unless it can be proven that they are prohibitons for one sex so as to be a matter of sin.

This is exactly what I am saying, but pinklight probably said it better than I did. An attempt to try to prove gender “functions” in anything other than physical sexual functions must be accompanied by prohibitions for to show that one gender can do something without also showing that the other gender is forbidden from doing something does not prove a unique function.

Also I think that it is wise to keep our discussions within the Christian context. The gifting that I am speaking of will be in the context of gifts given to the Christian.

1 Peter 4:11 Whoever speaks, is to do so as one who is speaking the utterances of God; whoever serves is to do so as one who is serving by the strength which God supplies; so that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Since we are given the permission to use our gifts for service, to prohibit these gifts would require a prohibition from God as He is the one who made us all in the image of God and for His glory. After all we are told that we cannot say to one member of the body of Christ that we do not need them. If we can now set up a system that deems the gifts of some as necessary for men and others as unnecessary then we are saying that some members are not needed for some other members of the body of Christ. Yet we are told that we cannot say that. Neither Paul nor any other apostle set up prohibitions on the use of the gifts of the Spirit according to race, age, gender or social standing.

I have taught extensively on 1 Corinthians 11 including an entire section in my DVD set and there is nothing in this chapter that limits the gifts of the Spirit by gender. Just like Genesis where the there is no prohibition in “function” for either Adam or Eve, there is also no prohibition in “function” for gender in 1 Cor. 11. Neither is restricted from ministering in the congregation in prophesying and Paul gives full permission to all in 1 Cor. 14 to use their gifts for the benefit of all.

I am always fascinated at how a complementarian has to work so hard to try to find prohibitions that don’t exist. I am always willing to entertain the facts of God’s Word so if you can find such a prohibition, please do share it with us.

Mark,
You say that men and women are not equal in “function”. Let me ask you the question then, what gender is the one which has the “function” of using their gift to teach? What gender has the “function” that allows them to use their gift to speak in God’s name? These are the “functions” that we have been talking about.

Also there is no prohibition unless it is specifically stated. In other words Eve is not forbidden to teach Adam or to lead Adam. God does not give a “function” to one that He forbids to the other. Where would Eve had gotten the idea that she was forbidden to “teach” Adam? Where would any woman have gotten such an idea in the OT? No formal prohibition is given for all women that sets them up in opposition to all men. Not one single prohibition. Why is this? Even the priesthood cannot be used because not all men were allowed to be priests. Also in the New Testament men and women are in the priesthood of the believer.

Mark, It would seem to be far better to leave aside the assumptions of a “function” that essentially forbids women from operating in that “function”. It would be far better to try to argue that God created prohibitions for women after the fall. Even this argument has many holes that cannot be answered but to try to say that God created differences of “function” where one is forbidden to operate in the same “function” i.e. teaching, is unsupportable by the Scriptures.

As far as “ezer” goes, I believe that Adam would have been an “ezer” to Eve if he had spoken up and told Eve about the lies of the serpent. The fact that Adam did not speak up showed that Adam failed to be what Eve needed at that time. It does not prove that Adam could not have been an “ezer” because it was the women’s “function”.

Lastly, whose “function” is it to learn? If a woman is going outside of her “function” to be a teacher, then is it a sin for a woman to go outside of his “function” to listen to a woman’s arguments? If he allows her to teach him anything is the man in sin? If it isn’t a sin for him, why not? How can it be a sin for her to teach, but not a sin for him to learn?

Sorry, this is all I can do tonight. It has been a long night and a short morning awaits.

It looks like there have been lots of comments since I last checked the blog. I haven’t had a chance to read them yet and the conference will be long hours for me. If I can carve out some time, I will read and comment.

It is snowing really hard here in Pennsylvania. We haven’t experienced this kind of snow before in this area this early and I wish I had brought my snow boots.

Love from a very cold Canadian,
Cheryl

Mark,
You said:

With the flow of the passage i struggle to see this. Eve’s ‘talking to’ falls directly under the curses of the serpent. However before God issues the curses in relation to Adam there is disruption in the flow where God address’ Adam for listening to Eve. So it is sensible to see why God has to re-address the use of the word ‘curse’ It seems hard to me to seperate the flow of the chapter between the serpent and Eve. What is discussed with her fits snuggly into the flow of the chapter and the curse of the serpent. Perhaps someone can show me in the text why we should make this seperation. Is there any indication in the Hebrew that what is addressed to Eve doesn’t fall under the banner of ‘curse’ with the flow of the text.

I know the argument of it doesn’t say ‘curse’ with eve, but what i am asking is, is there any indication in the Hebrew to seperate the 2

Yes there is indication in the Hebrew and in the English. The separation in the text is God’s direct words to each individual. God speaks to each “sinner”. The serpent is told that he is cursed and the curse is directly related to what he has done. “Because you have done this…” God said. Adam is addressed and God deals with his sin and curses the earth because of what Adam did. God also deals directly with the woman. God does not deal with the woman through the man. He deals with her regarding her sin and her claim to having been deceived. He accepts her claim and he curses the serpent without a word from the serpent. He gives a prophesy to the serpent but related to the woman that her seed he will be destroyed. God gives no prophesy to the man and God gives no positive outcome that would come from the man.

The verses are broken up into the persons whom God spoke directly to and nothing can break this “flow”. One cannot bring a curse on the woman because of God’s curse on the serpent. God brought a blessing through the woman, not a curse. She would bring the Messiah and the Messiah did not come through a cursed human being.

Later when Adam names Eve, he admits by naming her that she is the mother of all living. Adam on the other hand is father of all the dying. Through Adam we did. Through Eve and her seed we live. When we treat Eve as equal in sin with Adam we will fail to see that God’s mercy came through her and her seed while Adam’s treachery brought sin into the world. If Adam and Eve’s sin was the same, then there cannot be any reasonable explanation for God treating them differently. After all are we willing to say that had Adam as Eve’s “head” sinned and she had not, that Adam’s sin would have been imputed to her? Eve was not “in” Adam when he sinned so Eve could not have had sin put on her account because of Adam.

I hope this helps. The issue of the authority of the man is a very important issue. I will be dealing with this as soon as I can when I am back at home. I will deal with the man’s authority in the issue of the man’s “covering”. I think it will be a very interesting discussion and I sure hope that you stick around Mark. I would love to have you participate.

Mark,
While all sin shows that we all need a Savior since sin separates us from a Holy God, not all sin affects us the same way. We all fail daily to live up to God’s perfect standard, but there are practiced sins listed in the Bible where practicing such sins will remove us from the kingdom of God.

So my concern lies in Cheryl believing that Eve could have stayed in the garden because she wasn’t a threat. This is disagree with.

Mark, where do you get the idea that the garden was where God lived? The garden was man’s home, not God’s home. God met man there because this is where man was. It is very important to pay attention to the text because it will correct our errors.

The issue is why was Adam kicked out of the garden? It wasn’t because God walked with Adam there and so Adam needed to be away from the presence of God. The text specifically says that Adam had to be kept from the tree of life so that he would not live forever in his sinful state. The text does not say that he had to be kept from the garden because that is where God was.

Eve was not kicked out of the garden because her sin separated her from God so that she could no longer be in the garden. Keeping people away from God is never, ever said in the text. I challenge you to read it again and show me where God separated Himself from man. Remember it is the man and the woman who hid from God, not the other way around. God did not hide Himself from them. He came into the garden to talk to them and confront them even though He knew that they had sinned. God did not separate Himself from their sin. He confronted them and He provided a covering for their nakedness.

So the issue of whether Eve was kicked out of the garden has to center around eating of another now forbidden fruit. It has nothing to do with walking with God or forgiveness. It has to do with obedience. Adam was willfully disobedient with the first tree that was forbidden. The very fact that God did not say that Eve may reach out her hand and take of the fruit of the tree of life reveals that there was no rebellion in her heart. Now that Eve knew the truth of her deception, there would be no problem of her obedience in obeying God’s command to not eat from the tree of life should she have stayed in the garden.

Again, please note that the issue was not the garden home. The issue was eating the fruit of the tree of life when God told them that they would die if they ate of the forbidden fruit. There was no need to banish Eve unless she had a rebellious nature. The fact is that she did not. The rebellion did not come into the world through the man and the woman. Scripture is very specific that it came through the man alone. Each was treated as an individual and if sin came through the woman as an inherited rebellion, then the Scriptures would have told us this truth.

If i understand that Eden was where God dwelt on earth with perfect sinless people, then it is incomprehensible to think Eve ‘could’ have stayed in the garden as a sinner in the presence of God.

Where do you get this from? God has always showed Himself to sinful man since all men are now sinful since the fall. The Scriptures teach us about many humans who walked with God. God did not stay away from them just because they were sinful. That may be a tradition, but it isn’t the truth of Scripture.

If God could not walk with man at all if man is sinful, then the last episode of God walking in the garden calling for the man and then speaking to Adam and Eve would not have happened. God does not hide Himself from sinful man.

You say that Eve was banished from the garden, but reason alone will not do to prove your point. Where does the text say that Eve was a threat to the tree of life or that Eve was banished from the garden? I don’t think that we are allowed to bring on Eve restrictions that God didn’t give her. The issue of restricting women outside of the text starts right from Genesis. This is one of the reasons why this blog exists. Tradition tells us that Eve was kicked out of the garden, that Eve deceived Adam into eating of the forbidden fruit and that Eve was just as sinful as Adam was. This is tradition, but it is not Scripture.

It seems far more reasonable to me that ‘the man’ is spoken to for the precise reasons we have already discussed. He ‘listened’ to his wife instead of God.

The problem with this view is that Eve is not said to have spoken to Adam when she gave him the fruit. The only voice of Eve’s that is recorded is when she was talking to the serpent. Adam “listened” to Eve talking to the serpent and he listened while she was being deceived, but he did not “listen” to his wife while she tried to convince him to eat. Adam did not say that Eve begged him to eat or convinced him to eat when God questioned him on what he did. He merely said that she gave him the fruit and he ate. If we add to the text, then we add a sinful action that is not recorded in the Scripture.

He indeed is the ‘head’ of Eve if i can throw that in. As such God deals with him in this way as the leader.

God says not one word about Adam being the leader. If this was true, then please tell me why Adam was not called to account to speak for Eve? Surely if we can add to the Scriptures that Adam was the “leader” then why did Adam not act as a leader and why did God not hold him accountable for anything other than his own sin? This is a very important point and needs to be addressed.

Thanks for your consideration in proving your view from the Scriptures. I look forward to hearing what else you have to say and the Biblical proof that you have for your view.

And yes, if anyone should be thinking why I am not sleeping, I am sleepless tonight. Hubby woke up with feeling sick from a cold and he is here reading a book while I am typing. I think this is going to catch up to us for the weekend. Hopefully we can sleep on the plane.

Mark,

Also Cheryl, how have you come to the conclusion that the curse of the woman is not a mandate given by God, but just a prophecy of what fallen man would do? Could you point me to the text where it explains this?

I don’t think I answered this one yet.

There is no “curse” on the woman first of all and the prophesy given to the woman is never given as a command. The woman is not told to be under her husband and God did not command the man to rule over the woman. If it was a mandate, then it would seen terribly odd that God never gave the mandate to the man. God also did not tell the woman how she must react to the man’s rule. He did not mandate her response because he was not commanding her but giving her a prophesy. A prophesy is telling the future in advance. Did God tell Eve what her husband would do in his rebellious, sinful state? You bet!

I am always happy to entertain questions, challenges or just plain passionate discussion. Sure wish I had the ability to keep up with the conversation while I am away on ministry business.

Anyways, go ahead and respond to each other. I have to be up at 3 am for an early flight.

ZZZZzzzzzz……..