Under Much Grace,

You have nailed it on the head. Dr. Ware has made it very clear that we are to go to the Father in Jesus’ authority. This could be like going to the head of the company bringing a letter authorizing us to be there. Yet in reality, Jesus’ authority comes with his presence and his person. We come to God through the very person of Jesus. When we give glory to Jesus, we are giving glory to the Father. There is no competition here and the Father insists that we honor the Son even as we honor the Father. When we pray to Jesus we are also glorifying the Father. God is united and the Father is not insisting that we only pray to one member of the Trinity as if it was only one member of the Trinity whose job it is to answer. Jesus also told us that he answers prayers and I would rather believe Jesus.

It seems to me what they are trying to do is segregate the Trinity in a similar fashion as they segregate the body of Christ. They make spiritual “roles” that belong only to one gender and exclude the other gender. They also devise spiritual “roles” that belong to the Father alone and which also exclude the Son’s participation. This is just not biblical.

Patricia,
Praise God that your Father looked past tradition and culture and raised you to be free in Christ. What a wonderful testimony! Thank you for sharing it.

13 Kerryn,

Your point is well taken. Many try to credit Eve with sinning before she ate the fruit but this cannot be right. If Eve misrepresented Adam quoting of God or if she misrepresented God then she was either stupid (how could she get a very simple command wrong?) or guilty of a huge sin of adding to God’s words. Neither option makes sense. Surely the first woman who was said to be a “helper suitable for Adam” would not be a childlike creature incapable of understanding a simple sentence nor did she have any reason to lie about what God said. The simplest and most reasonable conclusion is that God spoke to Eve and told her not to touch the fruit and she accurately spoke what she was told. The thing that has made me wonder is why has it been so easy to doubt Eve’s words and why would we charge her with the sin of adding to God’s words when neither Adam nor God charged her with this sin? It appears to me that our Society’s prejudice against women has made this tradition seem right in that almost no one has bothered to challenge it before. Incredible!

Kerryn,

Good reasoning. Your are right in that the tree of life must have had seeds because God only gave the trees for food that had seeds (their life in them so to speak) and the only tree that was forbidden was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It certainly makes sense that if this tree had no life in it (no seeds) it was not meant to reproduce. I had seen that the tree of life was on both sides of the river and this does give us an indication that it is a “kind” of tree not just one solitary tree. If it had seeds apparently it was meant to reproduce. I like to take the bible literally unless it is clear that the literal meaning does not make sense in the context.

Great thoughts, Kerryn as usual!

Kerryn,
You are welcome! And yes, I agree there is much to think through. I remember the first time it occurred to me that it was our tradition alone that taught us that Eve didn’t hear from God and that she had added to God’s words. Scripture doesn’t say this and when one reasons it through, it doesn’t make sense. The way one has been taught to see scripture can sometimes be a blockage to really understanding what passage in context. There is much to rethink through so that we can take scripture alone instead of taking scripture plus tradition.

Michael,

You said:

Why did Eve add to the commandment? “I must not touch it or you will die!” Did Adam add that in to Eve (The Woman) when he told her about the tree? If so then if the Devil was spying on them he could use that against her/them! For the serpent was touching the tree for he was in it! Just a thought.

For the answer to this question we need to read the account carefully. The woman said that “God said” so her testimony is that God told her. Many think that Eve was not talked to directly by God regarding the prohibition but this is refuted by the text. In Gen. 1:27-29 God speaks to “them” and tells “them” what they can eat. The giving of the food that they can eat encompasses the prohibition. God said:

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;

Since in this verse God gave “them” every tree that has fruit yielding seed and we know that every tree was given them for food except for one, then we can confidently conclude that the one tree that has been forbidden them to eat did not have fruit that yielded seed. Thus in Genesis 1:29 was a restatement of the prohibition in a different way.

Did God talk to Eve directly and give her the prohibition? We can rightfully assume that he did, since he talked to both of them about what they could eat and Eve said that “God said” she was not to even touch the forbidden fruit. The conversation between God and Eve is not directly recorded in scripture but the testimony of a sinless woman (at the time it was said) is plenty of evidence that God told Eve not to touch the fruit.

So sorry, Kerryn I hadn’t realized that I didn’t get to your questions.

You said:

“Once we start ‘judging’ sin into different categories i think we can get ourselves into trouble. Are you saying that if Adam had NOT eaten the apple, we would still be in the Garden?”

I think we can only say what God says. God defines Adam’s sin as more serious than Eve’s sin since he sinned willfully and with knowledge. In the Old Testament there was an offering for unintentional sin:

Lev 4:22 ‘When a leader sins and unintentionally does any one of all the things which the LORD his God has commanded not to be done, and he becomes guilty,
Lev 4:23 if his sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a male without defect.

But if one sinned defiantly against God, his sin was on his own head.

Num 15:30 ‘But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Num 15:31 ‘Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.'”

This is called the sin literally with a “high hand”. It is a deliberate defiant sin like shaking one’s fist in God’s face. God has judged the attitude of this sin as being different than the attitude of one who sins unintentionally. Eve sinned unintentionally – she was completely and wholly deceived. Adam on the other hand was not deceived and God has judged him as an intentional sinner.

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

The one who sins with knowledge and in a defiant and treacherous way, God deals much differently with that person.

If it was possible that Adam had not sinned by eating the fruit, then both of them would have been in the garden waiting for the Messiah to be born from the woman in order for her seed to die for her sin. But we know that this is not the way that it happened because Adam was the one who sinned with knowledge and brought sin into the world.

One dictionary describes the presumptuous sin this way-

presumptuously: Heb. with an high hand, That is, bold, daring, deliberate acts of transgression against the fullest evidence, and in despite of the Divine authority. Such conduct “reproacheth the Lord,” as if his commands were needless, unreasonable, and inimical to the happiness of man; his favour were not desirable, or his wrath not to be feared. In short, as if it were more advantageous to rebel against him than to serve him. Such acts admitted of no atonement. The person was condemned to bear his own iniquity, and to be cut off.

Gill says:

Num 15:30 – But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously,…. Or with “an high hand” (t), or through pride, as the Targum of Jonathan; in an haughty, insolent, bold and daring manner; in an obstinate, stubborn, self-willed way, with purpose and design, openly and publicly, neither fearing God nor regarding man.

Is there sin that God judges differently? You bet!

You said:

Interestingly, Adam on the other hand showed no repentence or admission of fault, but rather looked to palm the blame off on the one who he used to see as ‘bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh” (Gen 2:23)

You are exactly right and this shows that his sin was purposeful and defiant. There was no repentance at all or admission of his fault. You also bring out a great point that in 1 Timothy 2:11, 12 the only imperative in these two verses is the command to let the woman learn.

You also said:

He is our representative because he was the one ‘through’ which all human life ultimately came. Could this not be the reason why transgression is laid at ‘his’ feet, rather than his sin being ‘greater’ than Eve’s?

No, it could not be the fact that through Adam all human life ultimately came otherwise Adam’s sin would also have been imputed to Eve since she is part of the humanity that came from him. However Adam’s sin was not imputed to Eve rather she was called into account for her own sin and Adam did not represent Eve to God. Adam was definitely NOT Eve’s representative in any way to God nor does God say Adam’s sin was imputed to Eve. Does that make sense? Instead of Adam being a representative of humanity before sin and then after sin, we see that Adam did not represent Eve and this exception rules out Adam’s place as the representative of the human race. Rather we should take God at his word that Adam’s sin was different than Eve’s. Nowhere does God state that Eve’s sin was done intentionally. Instead Eve was deceived. If we have a difference in the intention of sin, then we can understand why sin came through the man and not the woman.

I hope that helps!

Ashlady,
Welcome and thanks for your comments! There is so much to discuss on this subject and I hope you stick around and read some of the other articles.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Greg,
Our desire is to get the DVDs into many more hands so that there will be more women set free to serve Jesus in the way that he has called them. Thank you for your help and for recommending the set to others. That is a great help!

Don,
What a wonderful testimony! Thank you for reminding us that blasting someone who does not believe as we do will never help them to see the other side. I know for myself that if I am wrong on something, I would not help to demean me and ridicule me. I have been corrected by those who love me and shown the way. Where I have changed it has been because I love truth more than I love my own ego and admitting that I have been wrong is far better for me than holding on to error. It is wonderful to hear from men like you who have traveled down this road and have come to the place of accepting that God uses both men and women in his body. It helps us to put a human face and a human heart to those who are not yet where we are at. There is no guarantee that if we show complementarians respect and love that they will respect us enough to understand the scriptures from our eyes, but it will give them the opportunity to not shut the door to their heart from the Holy Spirit. In contrast an angry defensive attitude will most definitely help to harden their hearts. Let’s love our brothers and sisters enough in Christ to treat them with the love and respect that they deserve so that we may help and not hinder the Holy Spirit’s work in their lives.

Bravo, Don and thanks again for sharing a part of your story.

Kerryn, me too! I have a great deal of respect for these men who have been willing to travel down the road towards equality for women. Many men who have traveled this road find themselves treated in the same way that many women are treated — they are discounted and marginalized. Would it be to God that we were already at the end of the journey for all used-to-be-complementarian Christian men so that all of us could get on with our ministry to the body of Christ and to the world. The world needs to know that we are Christ’s followers by our love and how we respect one another.

If there are any used-to-be complementarian women out there who would like to share their journey with me, please do contact me. I would find it very encouraging.

Thanks Kerryn. You are right in that we all struggle with tradition that we bring to the scripture in one way or another. We constantly need the Lord’s help to sort this all out.

Keer,
This is why I believe that God had Adam name the animals. God knew that Adam needed the woman but Adam didn’t yet know it. When all the animals were paraded before Adam, it finally sunk in that he was missing something. And then when God created the woman especially for the man (she was the only mate that was created from the male instead of from the dirt) she could exclaim that finally here she was just for him. I believe that today it is also important for me to realize that women are needed for them. We aren’t just needed for women and children but men need us to help them in the spiritual realm. God has given us as a gift to men to supply what they lack and together we reflect God and his greatest accomplishment through mankind.

Michael,
There is no restriction on women regarding if they are not the only wife of their husband. Hanna was blessed by God in giving birth to Samuel and she was the barren wife of a man who had another wife. In those days a woman had no choice. If a man desired to take another wife he did not consult with her or get her permission. He did as he pleased. She could not divorce him because he took another wife. Therefore a wife who had a husband who had multiple wives was not guilty of having being immoral. Paul did not have a restriction on her in this regard. I would think it doubtful that such a woman would be in a place of seeking servanthood in the church by overseeing the flock, yet it certainly could still be possible. The rule would be that if scripture does not forbid someone from serving the body of Christ, then they should be allowed. Paul did not forbid Gentiles from being overseers even though the early church originally only had Jewish leadership. Since Gentiles were not forbidden to serve the congregation, then they should be allowed. The same would go for women who were married to polygamists. It is only the men who were the ones who themselves took on the additional wives who were held responsible and kept from being the spiritual examples to the congregation.

That is my two cents anyway 🙂

Michael,
I am glad that your friend Bonnie enjoyed the DVD.

The Trinity DVD is still in the research stage. From there it will be written and then edited into a script. It is a fairly long process. WIM took me two full years. I am expecting this one to be complete by Fall or perhaps sooner if all goes well. It requires us to take time away from other ministry and it isn’t always easy to carve out the time and isolate ourselves from everything else in order to immerse ourselves in the project. It is also a project we don’t want to rush, because we want to get it right the first time so that we have a product that will be very visual and helpful for many to come to a fuller understanding of the Trinity and where the errors lie in aberrant views.

Happy New Year to all the readers here on this blog!

EXCELLENT points, Greg! Right on.

5 Jason,

I concur that there is complete unity in the Trinity. This is why I find Bruce Ware’s position so difficult to fathom why he insists that Jesus is not to be talked to in prayer. Our relationship is with God himself in Trinity and to take away our relationship with Jesus because while he was here on earth living as a man, Jesus taught the disciples to address the Father, in no way excludes our Lord Jesus as an object of worship through our prayers. I believe that our DVD project on the Trinity will be an eye-opener to many who have been sincerely confused on this very important topic.

Tiffany,

The one thing that is added by complementarians that isn’t in the text is “leadership”. The husband is told to sacrifice for his wife and she is told to submit (to his sacrificial servanthood) but he is never told to lead his wife nor is she told that he is to be her leader. For some reason complementarians read in “leadership” when this is foreign to the text. Women don’t need a husband to “lead” them. They do need a husband to sacrifice for them. Never once does scripture ever position a husband in a leadership place over his wife. If this was the case then she would not be able to mature in Christ. As it is, the wife is given the responsibility to also mature in Christ without the need for a mediator between herself and her Lord. The husband can “lead” if he would like and a good thing for him would be to “lead” in humility and “lead” in servanthood. But the husband is not the “leader”. The ideal is the husband and wife working together as one, not one or the other “leading” the other. I still find it amazing that we so readily attach the position of “leader” to the husband when the scriptures never given him that place. Servant – yes; Leader – no.

Hello Tiffany, thank you for your comments.

I quoted 1 Peter 3:15 and I took this verse in context since it directly follows verse 14. In verse 14 Peter is talking about those who are suffering for doing what is right and he then encourages those who are suffering for doing what is right to be prepared to defend their faith and their godly actions (verse 15). The two verses go together connected with the word “but”. I tied in verse 14 (suffering for doing what is right) with woman’s suffering at the hands of some who berate them for using their God-given gifts for the benefit of men. I expressed the fact that nowhere in scripture does God tell women that they must be prejudiced against men and scripture is clear that the Spirit’s gifts in us are for the common good. In this post I focused on God’s gifts. While being responsible for a group of believers is a good thing, this is a place of responsibility and maturity and since I was only speaking about God’s giftedness and not about spiritual maturity, hence the issue of being responsible for a body of believers was not part of this post. I do however believe that “pastor” is a spiritual gift given to those whom God chooses (Ephesians 4) and those who have this gift will minister wherever they are. One may use their gift of pasturing in a small group or one-on-one or in the full body. The key here is using our spiritual gifts for the common good instead of any of us acting in a prejudicial way towards men by withholding our gifts for their benefit.

The person who is responsible as an overseer by overseeing the spiritual health of the congregation is not so much seen as a spiritual gift but a place of mature Christian responsibility. All may use their spiritual gifts but only those who have attained to a level of Christian maturity will be encouraged to oversee the flock so that the sheep are kept safe from the enemy and from false doctrine by the safe keeping of a mature and responsible Christian overseer.

Hey thanks Michael! Not sure you will have much luck, though as they are an organization committed to the complementarian view. Their radio host Todd Friel is very aggressively complementarian, but I do really like Ray Comfort and he is much more soft spoken.

Amen!!

Kim,
Wonderful words of wisdom, thank you! The issue certainly is about ego vs humble service. The desire of women to serve the body of Christ in their gifting should not result in an accusation that these women want the spotlight or want to rule over the men. The fact is exactly as you have pointed it out. “Ruling over” others is a worldly thing that has not been given to the leaders of the church.

I too hope that Matt comes to a knowledge of the truth on this issue. His attitude towards me has been very disrespectful and unkind and I understand that I am not the only woman teacher that he has been disrespectful to. We have been told to love one another and to treat each other with great respect. If we all follow Jesus’ instructions in this manner, we will come into that oneness in the body of Christ that Christ has called us to. Surely then the world will take notice that we have been with Jesus.

Don,
I agree. In fact I have used the same saying with former Jehovah’s Witnesses who are struggling to understand who Jesus is. I tell them that when their God is big enough, they won’t have any problems in understanding who Jesus is.

Teknomom, Greg, Kerryn, Jason and Under Much Grace, thank you for the encouragement and the thoughts. This is a very important subject and I will be doing much more work on this subject in the New Year.

Michael,
You are right in that there was much in Ephesus that was cultic and threatened to take the church into error. Thank you for sharing that!

Thank you Michael for your great comments! The biggest issue is that in anyone’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 must include a coherent view of verse 15. Verse 15 is so carefully constructed that when one gets the previous verses wrong, verse 15 will not make sense. We must know who the “she” and the “they” are in verse 15 and be able to link back to them from verse 12 or else this passage cannot be interpreted without leaving out some of the inspired words and the inspired grammar. I say that we make sure that we stick to scripture and pay attention to the words and the grammar. This is especially true when we have difficult passages like this one. This passage is not impossible to understand. It is possible in context and verse 15 is so vitally important to verse 12 that without it verse 12 becomes a pretext for error.

Oh and one final comment…..a big assumption that a part of the church has had is that God has different spiritual “roles” for different genders, different races and different social classes. Thankfully most of us have rejected the different spiritual “roles” for the races and now consider every race as equal in God’s eyes and equal in man’s eyes. But some still struggle with the issue of education and gender. If one doesn’t have a doctorate degree then that person is not spiritually equal in their “role” as teacher with the one who is merely “gifted” by God. I say let’s let God decide whom he gifts as that is a sovereign decision of God alone. When we stop looking down on bible teachers because of their skin color, their educational background or their gender, and recognize their gifting by God, we will be accepting what God alone can do – give gifts to his church.

Hi Billy,
I always welcome comments from Pastors and highly respect what they say. Let me encourage you to study the entire issue because you call it ridiculous. God has blessed me with pastors who have repented of their view of women from seeing my DVD series and others who have written me saying that their eyes have been opened to things they have never before seen in scripture. The very first pastor who changed his mind because of the extensive documentation in “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” was a Southern Baptist Pastor.

I would welcome your refutation of the series if you would care enough to view the material and refute it. No one yet has been able to provide a refutation and the series has been out about 2 years now. I am completely open to being corrected if you are able to do that in a spirit of love.

When you have viewed the series and have your refutation, I think all of us on this blog would be very interested in your view and the holes that you have found in my argument. If you chose not to view the material that is fine but I think it would be best not to call something ridiculous until you have actually seen the complete argument.

Billy,

Thanks for your comments here! We appreciate those who disagree agreeably. Now regarding what you said:

The phrase “anyone” is not refering to women…

The fact is that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14 that the “whole church” is gathered together and they all may prophesy. I know of no one who says that only men may prophesy and exegetes 1 Cor. 14 that way. Please explain from the context how you get everyone in the whole church as meaning only males. I believe that it is very important that we do not put our traditions into scripture and stop the ministry of anyone merely because of our human tradition.

Truth is what is important and I appreciate your challenge. You have challenged in a very gracious manner. I hope that you see our challenge back in the same loving manner.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Hi Billy. Welcome!

The problem that you are faced with if you take a position that Paul isn’t allowing a woman to speak while the “church” is assembled is that Paul does allow women to speak while the “church” is assembled in 1 Cor. 14. I believe that it is imperative that we work on an exegesis that will bring harmony to the passages in context. We wouldn’t want Paul to contradict himself or other clear passages.