Cheryl

Yes, TL, I do agree with you. This is where the complementarians have escalated this disagreement to and it is so sad. When fellow Christians are accused of losing their salvation or just plain not been saved in the first place if they do not believe in the hierarchical view, it is a false accusation against the brethren. Satan is our accuser and Christians should never follow his lead.

Hi TL,

Yes I am certain that we would have great fellowship in person!!

As far as a fondness for God’s furry creatures – I have only had one pet in my entire life and that was my best dog friend Buddy. He died last year and it took me a long time to get over him. I don’t think I could ever have a pet again because part of my heart was buried with him and I don’t want to hurt like that again.

TL,

Once again GREAT comments! These are also my thoughts and I will bring build on this in my next post on how to understand Paul.

Blessings,
Cheryl

Yes we are in Canada. We are in the midst of moving to the mountains. It is beautiful here but Hawaii….well that is paradise in my mind. I have never been to Hawaii but would like to go there once in my lifetime.

TL,

Excellent, excellent comments!! I would like to “paint” a picture just like this in the next DVD series. Marriage has been so misunderstood when the complementarians make it an issue of authority. Only when there is a united body is marriage the true symbol of Christ and the church. I really enjoyed these comments.

Thank you TL. I will make my article a priority this week and will try to fit in some time in the next couple of days.

Aloha sounds very Hawaiian. Wished it was hot
enough here to give you an Aloha greeting back.

“Warmly”
Cheryl

Hi Matt,

Thank you for coming to this blog. You are most certainly welcome here and your opposing viewpoint is welcome to be expressed. Don’t be surprised, though, if you find some well thought out challenges to your viewpoint expressed here as well. I believe that we can all learn from each other as long as we practice love and respect for another brother or sister in the Lord.

Regarding CBMW – yes I too would to know how they would respond. In my last email response from Chris Cowan (their email rep), he made it clear that it would be his last communication with me. I had been fairly persistent in asking for a response to the exegesis in my DVD. I do not know how many men in CBMW viewed WIM. I do know that the president saw it, although I suspect that he is the only one who watched it since he threw it in the garbage before he finished watching the entire series. That allows me to assume that he did not take the opportunity to pass it on to others. His only comments were that the quality of the DVDs themselves was poor. Well, honestly that really surprised me. I expected that they wouldn’t like the reasoning in the series as it isn’t complementarian, however to put down my video editing was a bit strange. The comments that I have received back regarding the video/editing/graphic quality of the DVDs has been a very high rating even from those who have not held an egalitarian view. So for me to get only a comment in passing about the quality of my editing work, seemed to me to be an attempt to just dismiss the whole project without having to put the effort in to deal with the content.

I highly doubt that you will get any kind of a response on WIM since CBMW reimbursed our ministry for the DVD set that they threw away, I would think that they would just like to wipe their hands off of any further responsibility. I was told that to continue to ask them to please provide a response or to pass me on to someone associated with them who would have the time to dialogue with me on women in ministry, Chris said smacked of an attitude of pride. That surprised me too. Maybe one can’t judge for themselves if one has pride or not, but people have generally said the opposite about me so it was a very surprising comment for me to read. If you do get an answer from CBMW, I would love to hear it. I am not about to contact them again since the personal attacks against me have dampened my desire to dialog with them.

Now to your question. I think the best way for me to answer is to put it into a blog article as many people don’t bother to read the comments on blogs. Give me a couple of days to get time to put together an article and I will tell you what I have learned about understanding Paul.

TL, lots of good points! I especially liked how you worded it this way “Paul was not a sloppy writer. He had specific points in mind in exactly that order.” The additional information that I will give in my next blog article will take off from that foundation in that I believe and teach that all scripture is God-breathed including the inspired words and the inspired grammar. My way of understanding Paul is probably nothing like you have ever read anywhere else (I am an out-of-the-box thinker whether that is a good thing or a bad thing remains to be seen 🙂 ) but it is logical, biblical and helps people to learn how to make sense of the hard sayings of Paul. More later…..

Hello Dennis,

Thanks for stopping by and providing your comments.

You said:

“Moore does not mean (nor does anyone one else I know who uses the terms “spiritual warfare”) that this is an in-house war against you or those of a feminist position. … He is not saying he views you as the enemy. He is saying that he believes a spiritual enemy has you (and the church at large) in his sights.â€

I certainly appreciate your opinion but I heartily disagree with you. Moore is not saying that Satan has us in his sights, but rather that Satan has us. This is why he says that this is a battle for the gospel. He does not believe that one can have the true gospel unless one accepts the complementarian position. In this way, it is a fight against egalitarians because egalitarians according to Moore are not preaching the true gospel.

Every egalitarian that I know of would not say that complementarians are preaching a false gospel. None of them would say that complementarians must repent of their belief in complementarianism or they are cannot be saved. Egalitarians do not make this an issue of the gospel and therefore although they can passionately disagree with complementarians, they can still consider them brothers and sisters in Christ.

However CBMW and Moore do not hold to this charitable position. They say that there must be change, there must be repentance and egalitarians must accept the complementarian position or they are not preaching the gospel and salvation depends on the complementarian position. Moore says that women are not necessarily lost who are egalitarian. What does that mean? It means that a woman who teaches the bible to men still has time to repent and if she repents she will not be lost.

I asked CBMW if a woman teaches the bible to men all her life and does not repent of this “sinâ€, will she go to hell? Their answer was consistent with the position that Moore presented. It is an issue of salvation. I was told that if a woman did not repent of teaching the bible to men by the time that she dies, then she must not have been saved to begin with, and yes, unsaved people go to hell.

When Moore and CBMW say that we are not believing or preaching the gospel, then they are charging us with heresy. Distorting the gospel of Christ is a serious offense and the charge of such a sin is a serious matter. Did Paul say that a distortion of the gospel is not a fight against the false teachers but only a fight against Satan? Absolutely not. Paul handed Hemenaeus and Alexander over to Satan. (1 Timothy 1:20) One cannot be a brother or sister in Christ and be guilty of distorting the gospel.

This is a serious charge and a very serious matter. But the gospel has nothing to do with complementarianism. The gospel is about who Jesus is, his death and resurrection and the price that he paid for our sin. Those who make a secondary issue to be a source of division in the body of Christ by attaching their side of this controversial issue to the gospel are those “who spreads strife among brothers†(Prov. 6:19). This is not a matter of complentarians fighting Satan. It is a matter of complementarians dividing and separating Christian brothers and sisters over a side issue. We have been told in scripture not to judge unfairly, and to be told as egalitarians that we are outside the gospel and in danger of being lost because we do not accept complementarianism is an unfair judgment. Anytime we add something to the gospel and make the acceptance of a secondary issue a requirement for salvation, we are treading in dangerous waters. I believe that these brothers in Christ are sincere in what they are doing, but they are sincerely wrong. I also believe that Jesus disciplines those he loves because using the gospel as a tool to force others to accept your opinion on a side issue is not an acceptable Christian practice.

Let’s continue talking and dialoguing as brothers and sisters in Christ, but I appeal to complementarians as my dear brothers in Christ, to turn away from making this an issue of salvation and the gospel.

Thank you Kerryn for your very kind words! I can use all the encouragement that I can get.

Blessings,
Cheryl

Amen! Good points, Victorious.

David,

The historical source for polygamy that I have is the Talmud. The Talmud is the oral law of the Jews. In the Talmud, polygamy is sanctioned although somewhat regulated depending on the rabbi. One rabbi said that a man may take as many women as he wants for wives as long as he could support them all. Another rabbi limited the number of wives for one man to four. However there was a strict prohibition regarding the High Priest. The High Priest was not allowed to have more than one wife at a time. He was allowed to be divorced and remarried but he was not allowed to be a polygamist. I would give you the references that I have but unfortunately all of my research books are at my new house and I am in my old house getting it fixed up for selling and I don’t have any of my books with me.

Since the Jews allowed polygamy and since many Jews were in the Christian congregation, it would inevitably come up as a question regarding what to do with polygamists. Paul had already given the ruling that one should remain in the way that one was called when he became saved. Someone who was married shouldn’t look to become single in order to serve Christ. Although a polygamist who had become saved was not told to divorce his wives, he was forbidden from becoming a Pastor, Elder or Overseer.

Paul’s statement that the Overseer is to be the husband of one wife follows the moral law that the Jews had for their highest spiritual leader. Polygamy is most certainly being talked about in reference to “the husband of one wife”. If it was anything else, like adultery, then that would have been taken care of by Paul stating that the Overseer must be “blameless”. An adulterer is not “blameless”. A polygamist could be blameless if he came to Christ after he was already a polygamist, but Paul ruled that such a one would not be a good spiritual example. He could be a Christian, but not a leader.

I have a section on 1 Timothy 3 on my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” I recommend that you get a copy of this DVD series because I believe it will help you greatly in your research.

Kerryn, thanks for your comments and the link!

Martin, you are exactly right. Jesus became a man and he became a male even though God is not male. He had to become male because of the sin of the first man. Jesus was the second Adam not the second Eve.

To claim that God is male is idolatrous. Why? Because it would be making God in our image and bringing God down to our level is idolatrous. While God is not male, he can choose to relate to us as a Father relates to his children. Relationship must have a point of relating. That means that God as our Father must of necessity be “Father” in the realm of relationship and only relationship. God is our source and our ever present help and our caregiver. These are only a few ways in which he fathers us. To put “Father” in any other realm (such as God’s character or His essence) is to bring God down to our level.

You are right in that those who wish to stop women from ministering in the body of Christ often see God as male. If God is male then somehow males represent him more accurately than females do. If this were so, then how could men and women be equals? They couldn’t. We are told that men and women are equal in God’s eyes, not men’s eyes. But that wouldn’t follow. If men are the only ones to truly represent God because God is male, then females aren’t equal in God’s eyes either.

Hi Anna,

I will be doing an article on the head covering for women including the topic of glory. In 1 Cor. 11 Paul does not prohibit women from speaking in front of the congregation whether covered or uncovered, but he does address the two reasons for covering and how one of those reasons is a shame to Christ. May I ask, why do you cover your hair?

Thank you, Wayne!

Hi Martin,

I don’t think he has seen our DVD since I know that the president of CBMW has thrown the copy I sent them into the garbage. I don’t think he passed it around before he threw it out. Unfortunately these men are very closed-minded and tend to come across in a judgmental way. Yet if they believe they have the truth and we are wrong, then they need to gently correct those who are in opposition (2 Timothy 2:25). It has been tiring for me to try to get them to respond. CBMW has already told me that they have nothing to say about my DVD and for me to keep asking for a response smacks of pride. Perhaps they feel they can see my heart and judge me for trying to discuss these issues. I do not think that is a kind way to respond to me and it hurts. Therefore I will no longer be trying to communicate with them although if they would like to communicate with me and dialogue in a loving and respectful manner, I would certainly be more than willing. As it stands it is time for me to concentrate more on reaching people who are open to hear both sides.

What we are hearing in these latest tapes shows the direction of this movement. I will be putting a summary of the other audio tape from the February conference within a couple of days. It is clear that there is a “battle” mentality that has become very combative towards egalitarians. This should not be. If they cannot love their brothers and sisters in Christ and if instead they choose to create a division in the church on a secondary issue, then I am afraid that they are going to find themselves disciplined by the Lord Jesus. He does not take lightly to attacks against the body of Christ and he hates this kind of division on non-essentials.

Hi Corie,

You are right in that the headship issue is pivotal. I have read the book “Why Not Women?†and I thought it a very good one. I especially appreciated the respect given towards the opposition. I have also found a loving and compassionate attitude coming from people like Rebecca Merrill Groothuis. These books brought out many thoughts that are very helpful to understanding the women’s issue. Each of these well-written books brought their own valid objections to the traditional hierarchal view. One of the weaknesses that CBMW has pointed out in their reviews of the egalitarian position, is that no egalitarian has successfully explained Paul’s reference to the creation account in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14. That has been true up until now. Most books with an egalitarian view have paid little attention to these important verses. However since the DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?†was produced in 2006, CBMW can no longer make this claim. These difficult verses have been exegeted in context using the original languages and grammar to make the link back to Genesis clear and understandable. It will now be in CBMW’s court to answer why they have inserted leadership into the text when the text itself is referencing deception and the fact that Adam was not deceived. There is no reference at all to leadership.

Regarding headship, there is much more to be said and taught and it is my plan to do a DVD series on the issue. Thanks for your encouragement!

Cheryl

Hi Kerryn,

You asked:

In your upcoming comments, could you pls elaborate on why all “male” are especially linked with Adam and the scriptures to support your argument. Is it to do with the fact that sperm carry “life” Or???

All males are linked with Adam because God has shown a difference between the seed of the woman and the seed of the man. We see the first reference regarding the difference in Genesis 3:15.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

It was not the man’s seed that would bruise the serpent, but the woman’s seed. Yet we can also see that it wasn’t Eve who had the Messiah, it was Mary. Women are linked to Eve through the woman’s seed. Mary’s seed was set apart by God to be the untainted seed (the seed of the woman) that would produce the Messiah. In contrast, Genesis 5:3 shows that the man’s seed carried his image.

Genesis 5:3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and name him Seth.

The Hebrew word here for “image” is tseh’-lem Hebrew #6754. Although the verse also says that Seth was in the likeness of Adam (his physical image), it also uses the term for image that means a representative figure (tseh’-lem). The word means image or likeness and is the theological word used to depict human beings as made in God’s own image. The word is also used in a concrete sense to depict images cut out of or molded from various materials. Since the fall, Adam is passing on the image of sin – a representative figure that gets passed along the entire male line. Adam’s “image” is passed on to his son. Just as Adam was created in the image of God, when he fell, his lineage was tainted by his rebellious image. All of us are sinners, but God has made a distinction regarding the seed of the man (which all males pass on) and the seed of the woman (which all females pass on).

I hope that helps.
Cheryl

Kerryn,

Good job with the identification of baptism with the cutting off of the flesh from the first covenant! You are absolutely right on. Jesus did not need to be baptized because he had no sin, but he identified with us as humans and he completely fulfilled the requirements of the law. In the same way Jesus did not need to have the sign of sin in his body, but because he came to identify with us in our flesh, he was born with a foreskin that also needed to be cut off.

In this way, Jesus identified with the physical seed of Abraham by having his foreskin cut off as required by the first covenant. He also identified with those who would become his body by being baptized himself. He took on the sign of both covenants even though by being the Son of God he would not have needed to come down to our level. Praise God that he identified with us and fulfilled the law that we were not able to fufill. By trusting in the finished work of Christ, we are complete – fully reconciled with God.

Keep up the good work at thinking this all through!

Cheryl

Martin,

The headcovering was symbolic of the shame of sin in the same way that the covering of fig leaves was used to cover the shame that Adam and Eve felt after their sin. God does not want us to “cover over” our sin. He wants to remove it with the blood of his own Son. As Christians, when we try to deal with our shame by covering over the shame of our sin, we are shaming Christ because Christ died to take away that shame. I think I will do a post on the shame/covering issue when I get a chance. Our second part of our ministry & household move is happening within days and so I will be occupied for several weeks until we are moved and unpacked.

Marco,

Although the foreskin is a symbol of sin in the Bible, the real problem is our heart. When Jesus cleanses us of our sin, we no longer have a “foreskin” problem because the death of Jesus cleanses us from all sin. We cannot deal with the “foreskin” of our heart by “pulling it back” and thus hiding the sin. We must confess our sin and allow Jesus to cut it off. It is the spiritual application that is important. The cutting off of the physical flesh is not required because Jesus has fulfilled the law and done the work for us.

Blessings!
Cheryl

Kerryn,

I forgot to answer this question:

Cheryl I am not sure how watertight the use of “he†in Gen 3:15 is for your argument… (My Greek is better than my Hebrew!) I do believe that the Scriptures are inspired by God. Yes Father knew that the Christ would be male, cos he knows everything from beginning to end. But does the ‘grammar’ itself really emphasise that the Messiah would be male through this one pronoun?

The prophesy came concerning Eve in Genesis 3:15 that her seed would crush the head of the serpent. Now if God wanted this to stay generic, he could have inspired this verse to read: Her seed shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise her seed on the head. However the original is not generic but masculine. It is interesting that Catholics try to make this a prophecy about Mary. The 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible says:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

However Genesis 4:1 proves that Eve understood this to be a prophesy concerning her having a male child. Genesis 4:1 says:

Genesis 4:1 Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, “I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.”

The words “the help of†are not in the original Hebrew. This verse literally says:

And Man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, I have acquired a man with Jehovah. (Darby Bible)

The seminary prof who taught the bible study that I attended a year ago taught us that this verse in the original shows that Eve believed that the prophesy that was given to her had been fulfilled with the birth of Cain. This birth was not just a child but a manchild.

So yes, I do believe that a male child was promised to come through the seed of the woman and Eve believed God.  When her first male child was born she thought that this was the son that she got through Jehovah.
I hope that helps!

Cheryl

Hey Kerryn,

Thanks for popping in!

Regarding others supporting this teaching, I have not found it in writing anywhere, but pretty much everyone that I have explained this to have agreed with it. It is one of those things where tradition has told us for so long that God only gave the prohibition to Adam and so we have accepted the explanation that Eve must have added to God’s word. I mean, surely God wouldn’t have spoken to the woman too, would he?

Ah, yes, believe it or not, the evidence is clear that Eve’s testimony is that God did speak to her too!

Last year I had the opportunity to speak about the logic of this teaching to a seminary prof. He was teaching a bible study that I attended and after the session he was discussing the sin of Adam and Eve with me. He stated that God only spoke to the man and that Eve added to God’s words. I asked him how he knew that. It was interesting to see the look on his face. It was like no one had ever asked him that question before and because of that it was a thought that had never entered his mind. He stated that this is what he had always been taught. I then asked him why Eve would lie and make up something that God had not told her? He agreed with me that if Eve added to God’s words that it would be a serious sin and that a sinless woman lying for no reason did not make sense when one thought it through. In the end he agreed that going through the passage with only the Bible, it was clear that Eve gave a true testimony about what God told her. Any other option would have charged a very serious sin to Eve.

The whole question that we need to work through is why have we so easily accepted the teaching that Eve added to God’s words when scripture nowhere says this? I believe that the answer to this question is that we have accepted the tradition that God favors men and that he only speaks his word through the man. This is a tradition that does not honor God because it charges God with partiality and favoritism.

Good day Kerryn (that’s Canadian for gidday!)

Great questions. You said:

The verses you use to make your point regarding Adam being a ‘man’ use the word anthropos, (Romans 5:12,19 and also likewise in 1 Cor 15:22, 45 when Paul teaches it is through Adam that sin / death came into the world). Although most translations would have this read ‘man’ it must be recognized that Paul is in fact avoiding gender specific language here. If he wanted to highlight Adam’s maleness in any way, he would have to have used a gender specific word such as aner.

I agree. The fact that Adam is male had nothing to do with the reason that he brought sin into the world. In fact these verses in Romans prove that Adam brought sin into the world not because of his maleness or his standing as some kind of special representative of humanity, but because of the sin that he committed. Adam’s sin was different from Eve’s in that their motivation and intention of their sin was completely different. The point that I was trying to emphasize in my original blog article is that the Adam brought sin into the world because of the way he sinned and as a male he passes along his sin nature and males continue to pass along the seed of Adam just as females pass along the seed of Eve.

In Romans 5:12 and 19 Paul is emphasizing that death came through one person just as life came through one person. In this passage Paul is contrasting the person of Adam with the person of Christ. It is not the fact that Adam was male that he brought sin into the world any more than the fact that Christ was male that brought life into the world. It was Christ’s sinless humanity that brought the ultimate sacrifice for our sin. I will be continuing this thought in a blog article that I will be writing shortly called “Is Adam the representative head of the human raceâ€. I think this article will help you follow along with my reasoning. You also said:

The quote you use from 1Timothy 2:14: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgressionâ€, simply states the case that Adam was not deceived. Gender is indeed in view in the context of 1 Tim 2:11-15, but I don’t see Paul using the verse to highlight Adam as a ‘male’ bringing sin into the world – just an illustration by Paul as to why ‘a (specific?) woman’, who is arguably in deception herself like Eve, should not teach in Ephesus.

Again, I agree. In the 1 Timothy 2 passage Paul is not lifting up males as ones who are not able to be deceived or that females are ones that are by nature the ones who are deceived. Paul is emphasizing that a person who is deceived (as the woman teacher is who is being stopped from teaching) should not be allowed to influence her husband with her deception. Paul is not emphasizing here the maleness of the one who wasn’t deceived, but rather he is drawing a parallel between two similar marital relationships where the husband is allowing the wife to continue on in her deception without doing one thing to help her and he is also allowing her to influence him with that deception.

Then your question:

Question:
Can you pls clearly show me how Scripture highlights the ‘maleness’ of Adam in relation to his “rebellious†sin which led humanity to our fallen state?

There are no scriptures that show that the “maleness†of Adam caused his rebellion. Instead scripture shows that the type of sin that Adam committed in his deliberate rebellion caused his rebellious sin to be passed on to us.

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

The Hebrew word used here means to act covertly, to be unfaithful, to deal deceitfully, to deal treacherously. Adam was not deceived. Adam sinned in an unfaithful, deceitful way towards God. Because of this treacherous act, Adam brought sin into the world.

Think of it this way. It was not who Adam was, but what Adam did that brought sin into the world. It was not his maleness that brought sin into the world, but his treacherous sin against God. Adam sinned willfully with knowledge. Adam rejected God’s word when he knew full well that the serpent was not telling the truth. Adam knew the truth but Adam sinned anyway.

Lastly you asked:

I am not saying your argument that the Messiah had to be a ‘male’ is wrong. Just that I am not clearly (yet) convinced by the Scriptural references you have used to support it. Can you help me further?

Let me try explaining it this way. Adam’s sin did not come because of his maleness, however because Adam was male and because his sin nature is passed on to all of us through his male offspring, Jesus became male to take on Adam’s original sin and all of our personal sins and to reverse the death sentence passed on to all of us from the first Adam.

The complementarian argument that Adam’s sin was passed on to us because of his maleness is completely wrong. The argument they give is that Eve sinned first but Adam was charged with sin because he was the man. That is not scriptural. It was not the maleness of Adam that brought sin into the world, but the way he sinned. Yet while all of us have become tainted by Adam’s sin, only the males physically pass on the seed of Adam and that seed has been tainted through and through with the sin nature. Again more information will follow in my article called “Is Adam the representative of the human race?â€

Once again, great questions and keep up the good work of being a Bible Berean!

Warmly,

Cheryl

Hello there,

I am back in the saddle although I am doing ministry work at the same time as I am packing up our second load of belongings. Busy times!

I appreciate that your husband is trying hard to follow God’s word. What is needed though is to make sure that it is God’s word, not just human tradition that we follow. 1 Timothy 3 does not say that a woman cannot be an elder. That is an assumption that many have come to because of the phrase “husband of one wife”, but the bible does not say that an elder cannot be a woman or that an elder must be a man or even that an elder must be a “husband”. I have heard men say that a woman cannot be an elder because a woman cannot be a “husband”. However if we take this passage to mean that women are denied the opportunity to serve the church in leadership because they cannot be a “husband”, then we must also deny the opportunity for anyone who is not a “husband”. Yet churches do not deny leadership opportunities to single men. Why? It is because churches understand the principle that carries across the years and across the culture from the New Testament until now.

Today we would take the principle to mean that if one is married, they must be faithful to and maried to only one spouse. No polygamists allowed. The passage does not mean that one must be married or that one must have children or that one must be male. To deny a woman in this passage would also mean that one MUST deny an unmarried man and MUST deny a man without a family. We cannot deny one without following the pattern to its logical conclusion.

If the Holy Spirit had wanted us to know for sure that women were not qualified to be elders or deacons in the body of Christ, then he would have done two things. First of all, he would have told us that women were not to be elders or deacons. That is plain and simple and easily understand as a prohibition. Second of all, he would have inspired the word for males only “aner” instead of the generic word for people in 1 Timothy 3:1. Paul wrote and the Holy Spirit inspired the term that includes women. Men or women may aspire to be an overseer (elder) according to 1 Timothy 3:1.

The other argument that Genesis 2-3 is referenced in 1 Timothy 2 is another place where some have taken a leap beyond what is actually being said. I agree that Paul takes us back to Genesis to prove his point. But what is his point? His point is show that the first creation of Adam was important because the first one created was not deceived. Paul also tells us that the second one created was deceived. Paul takes us back to Genesis to make an important point about deception. Paul says nothing about the leadership of the man and he does not tie leadership into Genesis. Paul ties in the deceived state of the second one created to the reason of the prohibition of a teacher(s) that Timothy was reminded of in chapter one and again in chapter two. Those who are deceived must not teach or influence others with their deception. Timothy is to put a stop to false teaching not true teaching.

In my DVD on 1 Timothy 2, I follow the Holy Spirit’s lead back to Genesis to find out why the first one created was not deceived. What did Adam see that caused him to know that the serpent was lying about God? Adam’s unique experience with God is highlighted when Paul states emphatically that the first one created was not deceived.

Hello Kerryn,

Thank you so much for your comments! I am also glad that your husband is ‘cautiously’ impressed with my DVD series. I have come to understand that change takes time. Being ‘cautious’ is a good thing because we must test all things by scripture. If scripture agrees, then we can accept it. If scripture contradicts the material, then we must reject the teaching no matter how much we like the person or how much we would like to believe the teaching. Scripture is our ultimate authority and being cautious is biblical.

I have also heard from many who said that they watched the series 3 times before they felt that it had all sunk in. Pretty much everyone has told me that the series has so much information and documentation in it, that it was hard to take it all in on the first viewing.

One Pastor had agreed last year to review WIM and point out any errors or scriptural discrepancies that he found. He thought it would be easy to disprove, but after watching the first DVD, he wrote back saying that he could clearly see that I had put much more work put into the DVD set than he had anticipated and it would take more time to review it. That was the spring of 2006 and although we have had some back and forth conversation since then, he still has not been able to find anything to refute. He ordered four more DVD sets to pass along to 3 of his pastor friends and one Christian apologist so that they could help him refute the material in the DVDs. That was late summer 2006 and to this date none of his friends have been able to help him in finding any scriptural error or any refutation of the material found in the DVD series.

Yet even though there have been no attempts at a refutation against the position that God gifts and uses women wherever he wants to use them, I am very sympathetic to those who are having their tradition challenged. It takes great courage for people to allow their point of view to be challenged and changed. We humans as a whole do not reconsider our long-held tradition very easily. Change is hard and it takes time and effort and a strong desire for truth no matter how painful that truth is.

Blessings to you and your husband!
Cheryl

Hello K,

Men do not carry a different sin nature than women do. We are all born in sin and all of us have inherited the sin nature. This sin nature comes from Adam through the father’s seed. Since all of us have human fathers, we are all in the same boat in that we are all sinners and all of us have been tainted with that spirit of rebellion. Eve fell into sin through deception and because she did not deliberately rebel against God on her own, the Messiah was able to be brought into the world through her seed. The Bible clearly says that the Messiah comes through the woman, and the sin nature comes through the line of Adam. Only one person has ever been born without the aid of a human father, so only one human can claim to have been born without the inherited rebellious sin nature and that is our Savior Jesus Christ.

Now this doesn’t mean that Eve did not sin. She did sin and she suffered the consequence for her sin. God said that she would die and she did. However God also judges the motives of the heart. Proverbs 16:2 says:

All the ways of a man are clean in his own sight, But the LORD weighs the motives.

Because Eve was completely and utterly deceived, her motive was not to rebel against God but to receive what she was led to believe God was keeping from her. When God judged her sin, he also judged her motives. Her motive was very different from the motive of Adam who sinned with his eyes wide open to the truth.

Eve’s transgression because of deception helps us in that it was the vehicle that God used to bring the Messiah into the world and the Messiah paid the penalty for our sin. You see God sovereignly used what Satan had planned as the destruction of mankind and God Himself was able to use Eve’s deception by Satan to bring about the redemption of mankind. Satan’s plan was to deceive, kill and destroy and he did catch the woman with his deception and then through her, the man stepped into deliberate and willful sin. Yet because Eve was deceived and did not willfully sin against God on her own, God “turned the tables†on Satan by bringing the Messiah through the seed of the very one whom Satan destroyed through deception.

Romans 3:23 says that all have sinned. That “all†does not include Jesus because he was the only one born without the sin nature and he also had no sin on his own. If he was born with the sin nature then he would not have qualified as the sinless Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. If he had the stain of inherited sin, he could not be the perfect sacrifice.

Mary was born with a sinful nature because she too had a human father. Jesus alone was born without inherited sin. Jesus alone was virgin born. Mary needed the Savior just like all of us need the Lord Jesus to pay the price for our sin.

You are right regarding Adam. He was the human who brought sin into the world and therefore represented all of humanity in sin. He did not merely represent males. He represented all humans, men and women alike, because all of us were in the seed of Adam when he sinned. Physically Adam took us all with him in his rebellion. Adam was the source of the sin nature for all of us. He was the father of all the dying. We all are born to die because all of us have inherited Adam’s sin nature. But Eve was not the mother of the dying. She was the mother of the living. In Genesis 3:20, it says

Now the man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all the living.

Yet that seed of life in the woman, could not produce life on her own. When her seed was mixed with the man’s seed, the result was always death because Adam was the father of the dying. This is why the virgin birth is so important. Jesus absolutely could not have had a human father. If Jesus had a human father, Jesus would have been born with the sentence of death. But because he had no human father, because God caused the egg to become fertile without the seed of the man, Jesus came from the seed of the woman alone without the death sentence imposed upon him from Adam. This is the miracle of the virgin birth and this virgin birth is as important to our faith as the resurrection is. You also asked:

question – i haven’t done hebrew as much as greek… is the “you” plural or singular in Gen 3:17 when God says to Adam i “commanded you…”? if it’s singular it might add to the case for God only giving Adam the command not to eat of the tree directly. (forgive me if it’s something you have already noted in another time and place before i began reading your blog!)

Genesis 3:17 is singular in using “you†but it cannot be used to prove that God only gave the prohibition to Adam directly. It only proves that God calls each person individually to account for their actions. God also asked Eve what she had done. God did not ask Adam what Eve had done.

If you haven’t listened to my audio talk that deals with the faulty traditions that the church (as well as the cults) have brought into the Genesis account, I recommend that you listen to the audio file linked at this blog topic: http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/10/26/audio-talk-now-available-online/

I also recommend that you scroll up to the diagrams directly above and go through them again. The diagrams have been the biggest help for people to understand the concept of original sin and how we inherit it and the importance of the virgin birth of Jesus. I hope this has helped. Let me know if you still have problems in understanding my reasoning process.

Hi Diane,

I have so glad that this blog has been a help to you. I did a 45 minute teaching on 1 Corinthians 11 on the glory issue regarding man and woman on my DVD, but I can also do an blog article on the issue as well. It may have to be in a few parts so that it isn’t so long.

Right now I am still on a 3 week long ministry trip so I don’t have time right now to do the article right now until we arrive home. Keep watch for a new post, and thanks for the suggestion.

Cathy,

I am on the road on a ministry trip so I don’t have the page number, etc, but the documentation that it is CBMW’s belief that it is a sin for women to teach men is from their book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. They say that women are restricted by God from two things – teaching biblical doctrine to men and having authority over men in the church.

In personal email conversations that I have had with CBMW, they have confirmed that God’s restrictions against these two things is a “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. They say that to disobey this “law” is sinning against God. They are unsure, though, if a woman who continues to “disobey” God by teaching men will go to hell or not. I was told that if a woman continued in disobedience that this called into question whether she was even saved and if she died in this state that she would go to hell. According to them, if a woman was a true Christian, she would repent of this “sin” and would therefore not go to hell.

I hope that helps.

Hey there zwagmeister,

I am just leaving on a 3 week ministry trip and will be mostly away from computer except for brief checks on email. The Genesis 2 – 3 connection to 1 Timothy 2 is well researched and explained on the hour DVD teaching on the ! Timothy 2 section on “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” I highly recommend that you get a copy of the set to let your husband see the full reasoning. I think it will make sense to him. I have had many comments from complementarian Pastors who were very challenged and impressed by the solid biblical reasoning. Okay, I’m off now and will respond later as I get a chance.

Ron,

All of Eve’s children have the sin nature except for Jesus because all of Eve’s offspring (except again for Jesus) have a human father. Eve did not deliberately sin but scripture says she “fell into transgression†1 Timothy 2:14. Adam did not fall into transgression because of being deceived but he disobeyed God by his own free will with his eyes wide open to the truth. God distinguishes between the two motives for sin and this is clear even from Genesis as only Adam is kicked out of the garden. Genesis 3:22-24 says:

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever“– therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.  So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

Why was only Adam kicked out? Because he was the only one who sinned in a deliberate manner. God knew that Adam would also be tempted to disobey God again in eating from the tree of life which would now be forbidden to them in their fallen state. God never questions whether the woman would disobey him because her original disobedience in the garden was caused by deception not deliberate disobedience. God kicked out the disobedient one – the man – and barred his way to the tree of life. The woman left the garden but not because she was driven out by God. She left because she desired the man and he took his sinful rule over her. (Genesis 3:16) God had predicted that she would want to be with the man and that came true as she left her garden home to be with her husband.

Adam’s deliberate rebellion brought the sin nature with him to all of mankind. Eve fell into transgression not through her own desire for rebellion, but because she was fully and completely deceived. This deception of Satan against the woman allowed God to turn the tables on the deceiver himself and God brought His grace through the woman and on her blood line and it was to be through her seed that the deceiver would be destroyed.

For a more complete explanation please see my reasoning in Why was Adam’s sin more serious than the sin of Eve? part 2 and also part one.