Lin

“I have had the same questions in my mind. When I read what they write about the origin of the female and God’s intention for her and her “punishment” I think how difficult it would be for them not to look down on their women in some way. I am just glad I am not married to a man who thinks these thoughts. I think it would be deeply troubling personally to me.”

I am writing from personal experience so please do not think I am being uncharitable. I am only speaking what I saw. If these couples make a living in ministry, these types of sermons, books, conferences are huge money makers for them. It also keeps them in the right circles to further their income. If they dared to change their minds on any of it, much income would dry up and they may even be in danger of losing their jobs as they would be labeled as liberals. It is in their best interest to further these bizarre doctrines about women and men. It sells. People love roles, rules and formulas. It is easier to read a book and follow it than it is to follow Christ.

But, I have a question that I saw someone pose on another blog that has just intrigued me for days. If they really believe these gender roles and in biblical womanhood and separate the two so much in all terms, even spiritual, then how can women be Christlike since Christ came in human male form?

“I feel frustrated at having to keep repeating myself.
Its like you are seeing this in 3D and I see it in 4D. There is another dimension in the Garden that we DON’T HAVE ANYMORE.
The man was NOT frustrated before the Fall.
The intimacy they had was satisfying FAR BEYOND anything mere sex offered. ”

Charis, I am not sure how anyone could say this to your satfisfaction but from what I have read here most agree with this .

“I still think you are imposing things on the text that aren’t in there. You make much of that when others do it and don’t seem to be willing to see it when you do it. You are IMPOSING frequent sexuality and your own experience of the centrality of that to marital intimacy. Its not in the text. ”

Wow, I think this is a bit strong. Can you be more specific? An exact quote or something?

“But I don’t wish to keep explaining myself. I feel some of the comments are misjudging me. Good and frequent sex does not a good marriage make- I know of what I speak. IF they had it (which you have convinced me they did on occasion), it was a nice perk (like chocolate to a child) but was NOT a centerpiece of the Garden experience. That experience was so far beyond sex and chocolate that Adam felt satisfied and so did Eve.”

Yes, and sin entered the world. But what do you do with ‘be fruitful and mulitply’ command in Gen 1? Are you saying they ignored it whether or not God allowed children to be born before the fall? Are children the only proof of sex? I am just not sure I am following you and what you are saying.

Did it ever occur to us that by women turing to man instead of God and being dominated by man that she then became a sex object? Good only for having sex and babies in the eyes of many throughout history? We see how this thinking has progressed throughout history into porn and sex being preached in the pulpits. Now, we even have John Piper defining what is beauty in a woman as in gentle and quiet as if these are not qualities for a man, too.

“Are you claiming that “one flesh union”= sex?
and that humans are in a different category because humans do it even when there is no possibility of conception?”

Charis, I certainly do not think that at all about ‘one flesh union’. I agree it went much deeper than that…and even intellectually deeper as a partnership than it is considered today.

“And though I agree that a woman’s desire for her husband is much more than physical, just think how it would be if she never ever had any sexual desire except during fertility (like animals). I think it would take away a lot of the sexualization of media, the exploitation of women, and it would make women much less dependent upon male opinion. And I think men would adjust. ”

Personally, I think the word ‘desire’ in Gen 3:16 is a horrible translation. It gets us off on the wrong track completely. I do not think it maps to the consequence of sin for women at all. But that is my opinion. I believe that the best translation is’ turning’…as in turning toward her husband and away from God. I think that matches the consequences of being dominated by her husband. She would turn to him to fulfill all her needs instead of also having an intimate relationship with God. If only we were teaching women to turn to God instead of their husbands for all their needs, especially their spiritual needs. I think we would see a huge change in the evangelical divorce rate.

“The first man and woman certainly were not going to “fill the earth” so God’s commission in Genesis 1 must go forward to the rest of us.”

How do we know what was going to happen before the fall in this respect? Here is what we DO know: Even after the fall, folks lived to 900 years old for a time until God declared the years to be 120. Adam and Eve were to live forever before the fall so the be ‘fruitful and mulitply command’, given BEFORE the fall, could have brought in quite a population before Gen 3. For whatever God’s purposes, they did not have children before the fall.

“So, are you and Cheryl claiming that a woman who never has children has disobeyed God’s command in Genesis 1? Or is that null and void nowadays now that the earth is pretty full? ”

That was a command before the fall. And, We are under a New Covenant now. The command now is to go and make disciples. If the command were still to be ‘fruitful and mulitply’ then Paul would never have written that it is ok not to marry so as to serve the Lord better. (I realize I am saying this to woman with a passel of kids so please do not be offended. I think large families are wonderful and a gift from God. That does not mean it is still a command)

“Were only the early women “required” to give birth or else be in disobedience to a command of God? What happened to the women who were infertile or never married?””

You are forgetting that sin entered the world and changed everything. Besides, we have examples of such women in Hannah, Sarah, Rachael and others who struggled with this. In a Patriarchal culture it is all they had to offer in many ways.

Being a woman who has only one child after many years of trying, I can certainly relate to those who have trouble in this regard. The most horrible thing was to hear from some patriarchal pastor that a closed womb was a punishment from God for some besetting sin. We live in a fallen world and bad stuff happens to both followers of Christ and pagans. How we deal with the bad stuff is what counts.

Have you ever wondered why a drug abuser can have child after child but a follower of Christ is infertile? Some dear friends of mine are adopting children of a drug abuser (they came about this as fostor parents) who keeps getting pregnant but the court has ordered she cannot keep them. They are now adopting her second child. Why would God allow the drug abuser to keep having children yet allow the follower of Christ to be barren? Such is our fallen world where it rains on the just and unjust.

“Seems like a red herring to bring in polygamy.
Polygamy cannot be blamed on the woman’s “desire” (or lack thereof)”

Charis, I don’t have time to respond to all of your comments tonight but this one kind of stuck out at me. I don’t think it is a red herring at all. Why polygamy? We also see it happen very soon after the fall. The first polygamist was also a murderer.

It is a result of sin being brought into the world. It has nothing to do with one flesh union. It is sexual sin, too, and goes against a one flesh union. God allowed it and regulated it later with the Law. It certainly caused a lot of problems in the OT!

I am not blaming polygamy on women. But women were ‘turning’ to men for all their needs after the fall. Men, in turn, were dominating women after the fall. The OT is all about people living out the consequences of the fall and God working through sinful man for His purposes.

Keep in mind that Eve was never ordered out of the garden yet she followed Adam out.

“Can you tell me from the passage where we know that the first man and woman had marital relations before the fall? I don’t see it in there. I’m not saying they did or didn’t nor would I ever claim “sex is a consequence of the fall” as God told them clearly to “be fruitful and multiply” before the fall, and they would not be able to do that apart from sex. But I don’t see any indication in the text that they did have sex before the fall. Maybe they were just busy enjoying each other’s and God’s company, the great fellowship and non-sexual affection and intimacy? When you just assume they had sex aren’t you imposing something on the passage? reading your own assumptions into it? (You point that out to others when they do it)”

We also have to ask why they all of a sudden became ashamed of their nakedness after they ate the fruit. I also believe the ‘be fruitful and multiply’ command is a very strong indicator that they had sex before the fall. This was a command of God to them. As Cheryl pointed out, there are other indicators. But why be ashamed of nakedness after their eyes were opened?

“I think that the “desire” in “your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” must have a sexual component to it.”

I think this is reading into it. We see early translations with the word ‘turning’ instead of desire. That was a later translation by a monk Pagnini (sp?). I believe it was turned into making it a sexual thing by male translators. But history does not bear this out. Who has the sexual drive in a relationship in general? It is the man. That is not in anyway to say that the woman does not have it more in some cases but like Tiro alluded to above, our hormones must have changed after the fall.

“I base this on the context of Genesis 3:16 which mentions pregnancy and childbirth twice. As you observed, God increases her fertility post-Fall per Gen 3:16. I think God not only increased her fertility but also increased her sexual desire. The consequences of the Fall are not God’s “curse” or “punishment” but are genuinely redemptive. Thus seeing increased sexual passion in marriage as a consequence of the Fall does not make me view sexual passion as “negative”.”

Keep reading in Gensis after the fall. What is one of the first things we see? Polygamy by Lamech. Sexually this sends a different message than what you are saying. Polygamy lessened a woman’s opportunity for sex but they went along with it willingly all through the OT. Why?

Interesting, tiro.

These guys love to talk about history teaching us truths of scripture but history teaches us that women have not sought to dominate men. Just the opposite. Even today many are still wearing burkas.

If women were seeking to dominate men, they really have been quite incompetent in their quest. :o)

“In a final knock against the woman, Ray Ortlund says that God gives the woman up. Ortlund sees Eve’s decision to accept the deception of the serpent as an act of insubordination towards the man – a sin that scripture never charges Eve with – and this act of insubordination causes God to give her up to her sin.”

Once again, man centered religion.

“If this is the true sense, then, in giving the woman up to her insubordinate desire, God is penalizing her with domination by her husband.”

No, God is telling us what will happen because the wife will turn toward her husband isntead of God. Domination by the husband is part of his sinful nature.

“Ortlund is saying that the woman sinned before she ate the fruit by having an attitude of insubordination towards her husband. In fact he implies that her insubordination was so bad that she usurped what belonged to the man alone.”

and

“Eve usurped Adam’s headship and led the way into sin.”

Ortlund cannot see how sinful his view of this passage really is. He is looking for a scape goat interpretation to make Adam not look so bad and to justify his views of rulership over women. It is nothing less than a carnal desire for power.

Another point: Eve was going to have children anyway. Now she will have more, quicker and in pain. However, Adam now has to deal with cursed land his sinful desire will be to dominate his wife and she allows it by turning to Adam instead of God.

Because of Adam’s sin, we all die. No one is exempt. Right? All people after Adam and Eve die because of Adam’s sin. BUT, how does Ortlund explain that Messiah could come through a woman? He doesn’t, does he?

I am glad, Cheryl. These sorts of eggs need to be analyzed closely. The twisting of scripture to make it fit a pet doctrine is becoming all too common.

Paula, looking forward to it.

Don, maybe it has to do with ‘roles’. :o)

Terri, I do not want to get into a political discussion but I know that your view of George Bush is incorrect and I think your characterization is unfair. For one thing, one of Obama’s selections for Treasury did not pay his taxes 20 years ago UNTIL it came out during the confirmation process. He still made it. I would be a criminal if I had done the same thing but this man can be Treasury secretary.

I say this to make the point that we need to leave politics out of it. Besides, Obama is known to promote more abortion. Not exactly humility before our Lord. I am egal but I am NO liberal. Besides, you are forgetting how Obama has set himself up as the ‘great hope’ for this country. Many see him as a sort of messiah. Not a humble stance at all. And it is a stance he, himself has promoted.

Dan the author of this post had this to say in comments:

Any female who calls herself a pastor has not submitted her sexuality to the Lordship of Christ, nor accepted His word as her law — and thus is not a fit guide.

When I first read this I was amazed by not surprised. I am seeing all kinds of twisting of scripture to support certain pet interpretations of secondary issues. And you are right…this is about powerful humans deciding who has certain gifts in the Body.

I was also confused as to what this has to do with the New Covenant where we are all priests in the Holy Priesthood. And where all true believers have ‘anointing’. (1 John)

“He did give them important information in Gen 1:28+”

What I meant was that God gave them important information in Genesis 1:

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all[b] the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so.

He told them to be fruitful and multiply, He told them about the food, etc. And He is telling them this before we read about either of them being formed. Is there any significance to this? I have no idea.

” However both male and female were made in their humanity and in their spiritual nature, in the image of God.”

Yes, I would not think we get our Image of God from the forming materials of dirt and bones.

“I am so grateful to God that he specifically said that male and female were made in his image because I am certain that if he had not been specific that men would have denied that we were direct image of God. Oh, wait….so many do deny that women are in the direct image of God! But so many more would deny it if it was not clearly stated.”

I have heard Ware teach that women are made in the ‘indirect’ image of God…a derivative. As if the forming materials used for
Adam and Eve are where the image of God comes from. I believe his back up verse is in 1 Corin and man being the Glory of God. Talk about reading into a verse!

on the disparity of Gen 1 and Gen 2 version, I do not know. I cannot for one minute believe that Adam (Human) was neutral, ungendered. I would be more apt to believe that because God is speaking of creating in His Image in this first part, that it would be a spritual type of being because that is the ‘Image of God’ part. (I feel strange even writing this!)

He did give them important information in Gen 1:28+

BTW: Since I never listen to Copeland or Hinn, it was bizarre hearing what they teach. And people give money for these guys to buy jets!

” Instead of a helper, she would see to be a whole lot of work for him. ”

It would be like Adam being presented with a child instead of Flesh of my Flesh for a One Flesh Union. I know the comps don’t think of it like that. They think of Eve as more of a junior associate who never learns the job or gets promoted. :o)

“One way to see the point I am making is that many translations and interpreters simply assume Adam is male from the get go, but the Bible does not say that Adam, it simply says Adam is human.”

This is something that keeps sticking out for me when reading Gen 1 and 2. In Gen 1, they are ‘created’ male and female.

In Gen 2, we see Adam ‘formed’ from the dust of the ground and then Eve formed or fashioned from Adam’s side.

So, are they ‘created’ then ‘formed’? I know that some have said that Gen 1 and 2 are not necessarily chronological. I would like to make better sense of the difference in created and formed.

(Yikes, what happened to spell check?)

Hey Kathleen! (That is a Southern greeting)

So glad you are here. The thing I love about this community of bloggers is that we can disagree but all here want the scripture to be the standard of truth. And we may even disagree on an interpretation here and there and still love one another. It is a great place to learn.

Your experience is becoming very common. The notion of earthly authority over others in the Body is becoming quite prevelant and ‘in your face’. We are hearing less and less about being a servant and more about ‘who’ is in authority over whom. That is just not the focus of or what the NT scriptures teach. I believe this thinking has become a huge snare for folks (both leaders and followers of those leaders) and since so much of Christianity has become a business or career ladder, it is getting even worse because incomes depend upon it.

So welcome, my friend.

Did you all know Amazing Grace was gender specific? I have a collection of my mom’s old hymn books and my 7 year old daughter and I love to sing from them. One night she was singing Amazing Grace alone in the other room and was doing pretty good sounding out all the words. But when it came to ‘wretch’ like me…she sang, ‘witch’ like me.

BTW: Issac is precious.

“And he interprets the woman not only for his own understanding of her, but also for her self-understanding. God did not explain to the woman who she was in relation to the man, although He could have done so. He allowed Adam to define the woman, in keeping with Adam’s headship.”

The arrogance of this thinking is breathtaking. Hard to believe it exists but it is so ingrained in Christendom and taught by so many celebrity pastors that it is scary. They actually believe this.

Where does this teaching put a man in relation to his wife in the NC? The result is obvious. And it is not good.

Hi Don, I am not sure I get your comment. Can you expound? :o)

“Ortlund seems to be saying that Eve set out with the willful intent to twist what God had said, as if she needed no encouragement from the serpent.  If that was true, the serpent would likely never have had to convince Eve with craft and subtlety with his “surely argument.”  All he would have had to have said was “Go ahead and eat,” and Eve would have followed the lust in her heart.”

Cindy, I have had to read your comments several times. So much to think on! You have made some excellent points.

If Eve ‘misquoted’ God, I doubt we would be taught that she was “deceived” in scritpure. Misquoting God is lying about what He said.  That is exactly what you are saying above. It would have already been in her heart. She would not need for the serpent to say, Surely….
Bottomline in the passage is that Eve admits she was deceived. Adam blames Eve and God. Adam: Willful deliberate sin. Eve: Deceived.
There might be some reading here that think we are communicating that Eve did not sin. That is not true. She sinned because she was deceived. Isn’t this what the much debated 1 Tim 2 teaches us?

Ortlund writes in his footnotes:

“Eve’s reply in verses 2-3 shows that she has been instructed in the command of 2:16-17, although she misquotes God.  The inaccuracies in her quote are to be explained in terms of sin’s operations in her mind, not in terms of “limited knowledge”… (emphasis is mine)”

Where does he get that she misquoted God? And, where do we see in this account sin entering her mind before the talk with the serpent?

“31. After Adam was created, Genesis 1:31 tells us, “God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Therefore Adam was very good; but this condition did not last. Genesis 2:18 tells us that presently God says: “It is not good that the man [or “Adam”], should be alone.” The “very good” state of humanity becomes “not good.” What had wrought signs of this change?”

The reason I have a problem with this thinking is that it is also reading into scripture. We have male and female ‘created’ in Gen 1. We see them ‘formed’ in Gen 2. This was all planned…even the process. God wanted Adam to see that being alone was not good.  I cannot see where that part has anything to do with sin entering the world. However, I do see where Adam did not ‘guard’ the garden and sin resulted.

Cheryl, I am so very glad you are analyzing and testing these teachings. It is amazing what we will believe about scripture until we really get in there and analyze it. We find so much read into it.

After living in compland for so long, i can tell you that many of these teachers will tell you not to read into scripture when it comes to other topics. But on this one, they have done nothing BUT read into scripture.

“the point is that when God’s order of leadership is repudiated it brings damage and ruin.

They are basically teaching that sinful women need to be under the authority of another depraved sinner all their life? That is where the damage and ruin come from. Not to mention women spending all their time trying to play their ‘role’ well instead of Abiding in Christ.

I always get suspicious when they trot out Isaiah 3:12 to affirm their pov. Most folks have not checked that verse out in different translations to see just how badly it is translated.  You cannot tell me that folks like the Mouser’s don’t know that verse is translated differently in the LXX, for example. The fact they use it as affirmation of their view speaks volumes.

Are you familiar with the relationship of the subordination of the Son regarding Calvinist/Arminian and complementarian/egalitarian in the Southern Baptist Convention?  I would be very interested to know more information in that area too.

That is a very interesting question. I have no idea and had not even thought about it.

Cheryl, SBTS is pretty much Calvinist and is very hierarchical in it’s teaching. Even Patriarchal. (Bruce Ware, MOore and Mohler)

But SWBTS (Paige Patterson) is not Calvinist at ALL and is as hierarchical as SBTS. SWBTS is the one that fired Dr. Klouda because women are not to teach young men Hebrew. It really does cut across the lines in the SBC. All SBC seminaries are very comp/pat no matter if Free Will or Calvinistic.

Sovereign Grace follows Calvinism, though.
Good point. And they are Charismatic.