TL

“1. I am not arguing that man is superior in being or function. I am saying we are equal in being (essence) and have different functions. I am not saying a mans role is more superior than the womens. Obviously you haven’t read me properly.”

It is my understanding that you are saying that men are superior in functions because they are men. This detracts from equal in essence although I do understand your thinking that as humans men and women are equal. But when you assign superior ‘roles and functions’ to one half of humanity by reason of their sex, then you erase some of the equality of being equally human.

The superiority of functions is clear in the functions you deny women. Leadership, positional authority, and teaching authority are denied women in your distribution of ‘functions’. Thus in your system of thought, men retain the privileges of ministering in the more important and life influencing aspects. It is because they are denied others, when others are just as capable, that tags them as reserved for those your system considers better equipped, and adds the elements of superior and inferior. The problem is that basic logic shows that one cannot be superior and preferred because of one’s sex (part of essence) and be considered equal to the one who is not only not preferred but not allowed because of their sex (essence). He is more than equal, he is the privileged and it is his sex, his essence that grants him this superior privilege. This is where Grudem’s and your claim to equal in essence breaks down.

”I have written a small paper to show where i get my opinions from i.e evidence. Not sure though if it is too big to post simply as a comment. I’m not totally up on this blog stuff.”

I would love to see it, but likely not as a comment here. Why not post it on your blog and give us the link.

”Egalitarians argue that there is no creation order in Gen, then when we look at this passage in Corinthians the answer changes from’ no creation order’ to ‘so what’, it ‘means nothing’ using your own words. It is inconsistent, do you believe there is a creation order but it means nothing, or do you believe there is no creation order?”

The problem with the “creation order” doctrine is that humans made it up. God said nothing about a creation order. The fact that one was born before the other is noting a “birthing” order but without legal meaning to it. It was later that humans began to give preference to the firstborn. Part of that may have been in looking for the Messiah that was promised. This was acceptable until someone decided to go backwards and assign preference to the birth order of humanity. They put words in God’s mouth so to speak.

What Paul did in 1 Cor. 11 was tackle the ‘birth order’ subject and redirect it. He starts out by noting the birth order of humanity, woman and the Messiah. It was a clever move since the order of those significant births put’s Christ last. I suspect that in the original letter to Paul from the Corinthians there must have been something said about birth order in trying to make men more significant than women. Paul continues, by pointing out in verses 11-12 that in the end the order of the birth of the first man and woman doesn’t really matter because now all humans come from woman.

11. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

In addition, the discussion on head coverings is also something humans made up. God is not concerned about head coverings of either men or women. Yes, Paul discusses the Hebrew theory behind it, but what he does not do is make it a church doctrine or requirement. Paul says that a woman has authority on her own head, that she is to decide. Historically, in that era there were laws in different areas requiring different types of coverings for women. In order to do what Paul recommended in the previous chapter, a woman had to consider not only her husband but the laws of the place she was speaking in. Women still need to do that today.

”31 Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 32 Give no offense, either to the Jews or to the Greeks or to the church of God, 33 just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.”

Good points pinklight.

In first Cor. 11 in the beginning Paul cites origins: first of humanity, then of woman, then of the Messiah. IMO the point of doing this was to show honor. We honor God who is our Creator. There is an honor women give men since we have our form from them; and drawing from that wives can honor husbands who support, protect, and provide for them. And we all honor Christ, our Messiah, who gave His life for us. He then proceeds in a discussion of women’s attire while prophesying (preaching) and praying publicly, and their responsibility to honor their husbands. As well, there is a hint to honor God and the body of Christ from the last verses in chapt. 10. Women are to exercise their own authority in choosing how to honor the local customs. This is a subject that we all must judge for ourselves, because God isn’t about legalities of this sort. God judges the heart.

“Here head connot mean ’source’, because source is the translated word for heads(plural). The singular is translated ‘mouth’. So should we say the man is the mouth of the wife?”

Not mouth as in what one speaks with, but like mouth of a stream as in origin. 🙂 And the first man was indeed used to become the origin of the first woman, the material out of which she was taken.

And FWIW, you have not by any means proved that ‘head’ always meant authority when used between people. Metaphors are not like that. One can make a metaphor out of anything from many different angles. As was noted, fire and water both have been used in a multitude of different metaphors with different meanings.

good point Kay!

Another thought on my part about metaphors. One of the first things we learn about metaphors, is that in different metaphors, the same word can be used differently. For instance, water in Scripture is used metaphorically to mean several different things. Water can refer to life, knowledge, healing and more. It all depends upon context. Metaphorically the word ‘fire’ in one place refers to judgment and in another place refers to the Holy Spirit.

Thus, the idea that ‘head’ (regardless of ‘head of’ or ‘head over’) is supposed to always mean one thing in all metaphors, is absolutely in error. It is really important if one wants to know truth and the real intent of the author, to read the full context. This often means reading paragraphs before and after.

One of many things that are being missed here is that it isn’t just about the word kephale, but also about the word somatos. They are used in metaphor together in the discussion we are having about genders having different functions. So whatever metaphorical meaning we come up with for kephale, we must then come up with a relative meaning for somatos, one that fits together with kephale. And to my knowledge there is no such metaphorical usage in the OT. We do have head and tail used at least once, maybe more. But it isn’t frequent. But we have no ‘head of’ and ‘body of’ at all.

For those who believe that ‘head of’ in marital and church relationships means authority, what do you believe the corresponding meaning is for ‘body of’ and why? What do you have to compare it to?

Mark wrote:”In the first link it actually supports the notion that kephale was understood as authority by Plato if you read the whole article and the commetss below. Suzanne actually say this “I personally believe that kephale may mean one of many things” and again “I see absolutely no reason to say that kephale must mean “authority,” or that it must mean “source.”. So this is evidence to show that it was understood as authority at least by Plato in this particular work. And this actually supports my own opinion which shows it had many meanings.”

In the first link Sue McCarthy wrote this regarding Plato:
”I personally believe that kephale may mean one of many things, all pointing to the fact that there ought to be unity between men and women, and mutual respect for real differences, (not imaginary ones) and essential and functional equality between the sexes.

I see absolutely no reason to say that kephale must mean “authority,” or that it must mean “source.” If people do not see the meaning of “authority over” in the relationship of husband and wife, they should still be respected as Bible believing Christians.

We should move on to deal with the harm that is done in the Christian community. If people are damaged by one person in the marriage controlling or commanding the other, then we should deal with that. If people are hurt by abandonment and adultery, then we should deal with that.”

We agree that kephale may mean many things. Where we disagree is that it may primarily mean authority. Making ‘head’ mean authority is an aberration and exceedingly unusual, although possible. We just haven’t found an absolute place to ground that claim in history. My best guess is that it was used to mean in front, topmost, preeminent more often than anything else in the OT.

McCarthy writes in another link:

”Would it surprise you to know that not even once is kephal? used in connection to any of the authority relationships which we believe God has ordained in the Hebrew scriptures?

Not once is the word kephal? used in the Septuagint or in ancient Greek literature preceding the Bible in the following expressions,
head of the nation
head of the people
head of the tribe
head of the family
head of the army

Instead, we find that the king of Egypt is head of the kings in his own family line, those who precede and follow him. Zeus is the beginning of all things, David is called the head of the Gentiles, the leaders of the tribes are called “heads” of staffs, and the kephal? is a raiding party in Job 1:17.

”Do people want to dispute that kephale as translated in the LXX does not denote some sort of authority? This might be helpful as it is a significant primary document in understanding this word.”

The LXX is not the only source of understanding the use of kephale. And also you appear to be using it backwards. The point of the LXX is that when rosh was used in ways NOT about authority, that is when they used kephale in the LXX. And kephale has not been found to be used in the sense of authority.

”It seems like people are skirting around the issue that kephale is understood to mean authority both in biblical and other ancient greek literature. Is this a fair presumption?”

This is actually not correct at all. If you would read the links and the extensive research of McCarthy you would see that in fact the opposite is true. Kephale is NOT used to mean authority in metaphors. The primary meaning of kephale is the head on our shoulders. It may mean primary, preeminent, foremost, source, origin and other similar in metaphors. All those things are relative to what an actual head on a body could be considered. But people do not consider their physical heads, their authority. We are our own authority, our very person and we live in a body.

With all of the lengthy discussion in Christiandom about this, Grudem ended up with only one example in history to support his theory of head meaning authority. That was : ”the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation”. But it has easily been pointed out that statement did not mean that the king of Egypt ruled, controlled, directed, etc. the other kings. What it meant was that the King of Egypt was prominent, he stood out among them as a physical head stands on top of the body.

sorry about all the links, but Mark seemed to have missed them. so I thought I’d get them out for him. 🙂

Mark, here are the links from the page I gave you…..
Response to Johm M. Reynolds
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/response-to-john-mark-reynolds.html

Grudem and kephale
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/grudem-and-ptolemy.html

Grudem and Glare
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/grudem-and-glare.html

Omitted Citations
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/omitted-citations.html

kephale in Literature
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/kephale-in-literature.html

McCarthy’s note on the page I sent was…..

“The foremost example which Grudem uses to prove that kephale means “authority over” is,

“the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation”

Grudem used this quote on Jan. 19, 2008, on the Gender Blog. However, in Appendix 1A of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, he wrote,

19) Philo, Moses 2.30: As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy [Ptolemy Philadelphos] became among kings.
Cervin does not think that head means ruler here because Philo says that Philadelphos is the head of kings, not in the sense of ruling them, but as the preeminent king among the rest. Philadelphos is the top of the kings just as the head is the top of an animal’s body. . . . This example is therefore to be rejected (p. 100).”

Grudem continues in RBMW Appendix 1B to discuss this example. However, he fails to show that it means “authority over.” This is Grudem’s best piece of evidence and proves the opposite of his thesis, which is that kephale means authority. It obviously doesn’t. The rest of Grudem’s examples are similar. However, what is the point of quoting them if Grudem just recycles rejected evidence?

That should help!

testing to see if my comment will come through…. last one didn’t

Mark, here are the links from the page I gave you…..
Response to Johm M. Reynolds
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/response-to-john-mark-reynolds.html

Grudem and kephale
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/grudem-and-ptolemy.html

Grudem and Glare
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/grudem-and-glare.html

Omitted Citations
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/omitted-citations.html

kephale in Literature
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/kephale-in-literature.html

McCarthy’s note on the page I sent was…..

“The foremost example which Grudem uses to prove that kephale means “authority over” is,

“the king of Egypt is called “head” of the nation”

Grudem used this quote on Jan. 19, 2008, on the Gender Blog. However, in Appendix 1A of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, he wrote,

19) Philo, Moses 2.30: As the head is the ruling place in the living body, so Ptolemy [Ptolemy Philadelphos] became among kings.
Cervin does not think that head means ruler here because Philo says that Philadelphos is the head of kings, not in the sense of ruling them, but as the preeminent king among the rest. Philadelphos is the top of the kings just as the head is the top of an animal’s body. . . . This example is therefore to be rejected (p. 100).”

Grudem continues in RBMW Appendix 1B to discuss this example. However, he fails to show that it means “authority over.” This is Grudem’s best piece of evidence and proves the opposite of his thesis, which is that kephale means authority. It obviously doesn’t. The rest of Grudem’s examples are similar. However, what is the point of quoting them if Grudem just recycles rejected evidence?

That should help!

Regarding Matt. 22:23-30

Mark wrote: ”4. This text has nothing to do with authority and everything to do with the resurrection. It is a bad ‘proof’ text to support your view.”

I’m not so sure. Christ gave 2 answers, first saying they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God for in the resurrection there is no marriage, but are like the angels. Then Jesus says:” But concerning the resurrection of the dead…..” So, Christ’s first answer was not only about the resurrection. I suspect He knew what was in their hearts and answered that as well, because their wording was who would “have” her, meaning whose possession would she be, which is indirectly about authority.

Regarding the McCarthy research on kephale,
Mark wrote: ”2. The links were not well researched at all, it was just a rebuttle about a very small thing Grudem has said. It was all about dis-proving Grudem, and had very little ‘research’ to show any other use of the word.”

This appears to be a very revealing answer as one who is not interested in real research. But I’m going to assume that perhaps you don’t really know the extent of what Grudem says regarding both authority of men and how he improperly uses the word kephale. As well, to say that McCarthy did not research well must mean you didn’t really read her research. McCarthy’s research is pretty much within the top 10% of research on the subject. And while Grudem is popular, his research is appallingly second rate, leaving info off, assuming claims that cannot be actually supported, and so forth.

”Im unsure whether you are disputing the 3 uses of kephale in greek literature that i listed or agreeing?”

If you don’t mind, would you please give them again and I’ll respond after church.

Cheryl, just watched your YouTube clipping. I haven’t heard of all the individuals you named at the end. Are you suggesting that all of them are Word Faith and off base in prosperity and certain other doctrines?

“ow concerning Corinthians…
I think it would be helpful to state first before looking deeply at the passage what we all understand head ‘kephale’ to mean. As such i have come across 3 options.”

Please go here…..
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/index-cbmw-grudem-kephale.html

scroll down to the section on kephale and look through the links. It is quite thoroughly researched.

Then we can talk. 🙂

“I’m glad that you are disagreeing between yourselves as to whether there are physiological differences. It is helpful to see where everyone is coming from. It is hard in my opinion to deny that there are such differences. Women and men most definately are not the same.”

Disagreement if fine. However, I didn’t notice that we did. Everyone has always agreed that men and women are not the same. Basically, because we relate to the world with different bodies (including slightly different wiring between brain hemispheres) we will approach the world and life from different angles. The one place we should all agree upon is that all men and not alike and all women are not alike.

But I would be interested to hear in what ways you think men and women are different.

I would imagine that today if a judge found a relative on his court list that he would transfer it over to another judge as a case of conflict of interest. Such things may present a pickle from time to time, but not so much as to deny a person to exercise their skills and callings in life.

”Therefore i come to the conclusion that we are indeed equal in essence but there is nothing in Gen 1-3 to show or explain total equality. But there is evidence to show that Adam and Eve do indeed have different functions which i have shown already. Whether the significance of these roles indicates any type of authority is another question.”

For the purpose of our communication, I am assuming also that you would understand total equality to mean “same as”. That really should be thrown out the window though because no on believes men and women are identical.

I also do not believe that people are born to “functions”. IMO that is like bringing in the old class distinctions. People were born into a class and could never rise above it to improve their status in life. Even Japan and China have it to some degree with their school system. One must get certain grades in school in order to get work in the better corporations. Didn’t matter if they could do something better, they simply were never given the opportunity. We used to believe that blacks were born to be slaves. Rather than all that controlling of people, I believe that each individual should be given opportunity and encouraged to use all the gifts, skills, and ingenuity they have.

“I would also like to re-state that i do not see any text explicitly in Gen 1-3 to state hierarchy or authority. I understand from other texts which we will further discuss as to why i can ‘read into’ Gen 1-3 that Adam was indeed the leader.”

I don’t see how you can claim that God restricts women from being leaders simply because you assume that things the first man did were leadership like. Even if things Adam did were leadership like, that really has nil to do with all men for all time. It only had to do with Adam’s situation.

”So i ask this question to egalitarians. Do you agree that there are different roles/functions for Adam and Eve? Can we agree that your view of total equality and my view of authority are both read into this text from our greater understanding of the bible.”

The total equality may need to be defined from our perspective, because I am not sure that we are on the same page there. I agree that all humans are equal in essence regardless of our many differences.

No, I do not believe in roles and functions restricting and limiting only one gender. I do not believe in limiting people from doing what they are capable from doing unless it is a matter of sin.

”because as we understand it in relation to God being our ‘help’ He is most definately not ‘equal’ with us.”

True, God is not equal with us in any way. He is Creator. But the word ezer is not the one that is about being equal. Kenegdo, from neged is the word that shows us equality between the man and woman. And I think you will have a very difficult time trying to deny the meaning of that word.

May I ask why is it important to you for women to not be equal in stations in life and abilities. Why is it important to you for women to be restricted and limited in what ‘functions’ they perform in the marriage relationship. And why is it important to you for women to be restricted from teaching and leading men in the church (I assume you may think it acceptable in other areas) in Scriptural and spiritual matters. Do you really truly think that only males can understand truth and only males are capable of teaching truth and leading other men toward the truth and toward God?

Mark, I also want you to know that I am not interested in “winning” this discussion. It isn’t about winning and losing to me. It’s about understanding what is real and truthful. Women are hurt from the outcomes of these discussions.

It’s not simply about men being abusive although that is an important element. It’s about the loss of life, living life to the fullest for women. Growing up in the Catholic traditions and their demeaning restrictions on women destroyed my life until God set me free. These beliefs of womanly restrictions and manly privileges harm both men and women, but most often women. They set some women up in negative bondages. They choke the life out of women so that far fewer women will grow into the full person of God they were meant to be.

”Therefore i come to the conclusion that we are indeed equal in essence but there is nothing in Gen 1-3 to show or explain total equality. But there is evidence to show that Adam and Eve do indeed have different functions which i have shown already. Whether the significance of these roles indicates any type of authority is another question.”

For the purpose of our communication, I am assuming also that you would understand total equality to mean “same as”. That really should be thrown out the window though because no on believes men and women are identical.

I also do not believe that people are born to “functions”. IMO that is like bringing in the old class distinctions. People were born into a class and could never rise above it to improve their status in life. Even Japan and China have it to some degree with their school system. One must get certain grades in school in order to get work in the better corporations. Didn’t matter if they could do something better, they simply were never given the opportunity. We used to believe that blacks were born to be slaves. Rather than all that controlling of people, I believe that each individual should be given opportunity and encouraged to use all the gifts, skills, and ingenuity they have.

“I would also like to re-state that i do not see any text explicitly in Gen 1-3 to state hierarchy or authority. I understand from other texts which we will further discuss as to why i can ‘read into’ Gen 1-3 that Adam was indeed the leader.”

I don’t see how you can claim that God restricts women from being leaders simply because you assume that things the first man did were leadership like. Even if things Adam did were leadership like, that really has nil to do with all men for all time. It only had to do with Adam’s situation.

”So i ask this question to egalitarians. Do you agree that there are different roles/functions for Adam and Eve? Can we agree that your view of total equality and my view of authority are both read into this text from our greater understanding of the bible.”

The total equality may need to be defined from our perspective, because I am not sure that we are on the same page there. I agree that all humans are equal in essence regardless of our many differences.

No, I do not believe in roles and functions restricting and limiting only one gender. I do not believe in limiting people from doing what they are capable from doing unless it is a matter of sin.

”because as we understand it in relation to God being our ‘help’ He is most definately not ‘equal’ with us.”

True, God is not equal with us in any way. He is Creator. But the word ezer is not the one that is about being equal. Kenegdo, from neged is the word that shows us equality between the man and woman. And I think you will have a very difficult time trying to deny the meaning of that word.

May I ask why is it important to you for women to not be equal in stations in life and abilities. Why is it important to you for women to be restricted and limited in what ‘functions’ they perform in the marriage relationship. And why is it important to you for women to be restricted from teaching and leading men in the church (I assume you may think it acceptable in other areas) in Scriptural and spiritual matters. Do you really truly think that only males can understand truth and only males are capable of teaching truth and leading other men toward the truth and toward God?

Mark, I also want you to know that I am not interested in “winning” this discussion. It isn’t about winning and losing to me. It’s about understanding what is real and truthful. Women are hurt from the outcomes of these discussions.

It’s not simply about men being abusive. It’s about the loss of life, living life to the fullest for women. Growing up in the Catholic traditions and their demeaning restrictions on women destroyed my life until God set me free. These beliefs of womanly restrictions and manly privileges harm both men and women, but most often women. They set women up in negative attitudes. They choke the life out of women so that far fewer women will grow into the full person of God they were meant to be.

Good point Kay. 🙂

Regarding the hiding from shame. The fact that they both never noticed that they were naked until they had sinned brings up another question. God told them that they would die. Death was the primary result of sin. We know that death is far reaching affecting many areas of life including one’s inner person, emotions, intellect as well as so many ways physically and spiritually. So, the question is, what died immediately upon their completion of the disobedience? I’ve often thought that being pure and without sin, that they were clothed in a spiritual light similar to the angels of God. If so, when they brought death upon themselves, that light of holiness and purity likely went out.

what do you think??

”The’image of God’ has failed to be shown as equal. Adam’s exclamation of Eve really does nothing to promote total equality without distinctions of roles. The ‘one flesh’ verse is never used in scripture to promote the egalitarian view of equality.”

I strongly dispute that there is inequality in the image of God. God is a perfect unified ONE. There is no inequality in Him/Them (Eloheim).

Yes, the fact that both man and woman were created in the image of God is the first place to show of their equality. We are all human first and foremost. Maleness and femaleness do not detract from our humanness or being in the image of God.

The second place to show of their equality is that they are both to govern the earth and it’s creatures. Together, the first mandate of God is to rule as guardians over the creatures of the earth. “Rulership”, guardianship, leadership are abilities all humans are capable of. It is in our genes.

The third place to show of their equality is that the woman is presented to the man as the ezer (strong help – not helper or assistant) kenegdo (equal to, counterpart to, corresponding to, facing) for him. It is the Hebrew neged that brings this element to their relationship. Interestingly, it is out of this root word, neged, that another word , nagid, arises which means prominent one, ruler and leader. Both of these words, neged and ezer, are strong words describing the one who is to allay or fix the human’s need of an other. Humans were not meant to be alone. We are meant to live in community. But that community ideally is not supposed to be one of superiors and inferiors but equals living in mutuality and harmony each blessing the other.

” TL- i am glad that we are agree that spiritual equality in Christ doesn’t allude to sin. The point i was making was that historically when a church has accepted or ordained women pastors and the like, homosexuality acceptance has followed.”

Now that was a bit confusing. Yes, spiritual equality doesn’t allude to sin. Women are indeed equally valuable to God and equally available to God to use to minister to His people. It is true that some confused people have yielded to some clever deceptions that homosexuality is not a sin so therefore homosexuals should be accepted. But the problem here is not the question of being equally accepted, but of what is sin and what isn’t. Homosexuality is sin, period. And it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with women pastors “and the like”.

” So you might say it is a reality that abuse has occurred and i have no doubt. It is equally a realtiy that acceptance of homosexuality has followed supposed egalitarian teaching. Thats why it is important to steer clear of these type of arguments”

These two hypothetic views are not equal. Abuse occurs more often (it will still occur) when men, who are the primary abusers (because of natural strength superiority and generally more social status and power), are told that they have sole privilege to lead, to decide, to direct and control their wives. That privilege denied women puts men in the place where Satan has a door to influence. Wrongful and too much power is dangerous for most people.

The reason it is wrong for active homosexuals to be in leadership is because they are living a life of gross sin. Homosexuality is sinful. Women leading the people of God is not sinful, because being born a woman (living life as a woman) is not sinful. If a particular woman was leading a sinful life (or a particular man) then she should not be allowed to be leading the people of God, because of her sinful life. I wish we paid more attention to that because there are far too many men leading sinful lives who are leading God’s people.

Women teaching and preaching is no more sinful than men teaching and preaching. Teaching and preaching is not sinful. Maleness and femaleness are not inherently sinful. The question must only be, who is called and anointed by God. There have been fewer women used of God, but still many more than most Christian’s are aware of.

Hey Mark, generally misconceptions take a while to clear up. That’s my experience. 🙂

”I thought that i made it clear that my understanding of Adam’s leadership stems from what i understand that to be as expressed throughout all of scripture.”

My understanding of the basic equality between men and women, I believe to be expressed throughout all of Scripture as well. I am interested In what things you see that say to you God has expressed a requirement for men only to lead and women to follow men. One problem I have with that right off, is that God is not facetious. If God makes a rule of righteousness, He does not hide it but makes it plain so that His people can follow it and achieve righteousness.

”If we talk this literary it must be false. Because we know in Genesis that Eve was indeed the first to sin, so sin actually entered the world first through Eve. ……..See i think it makes perfect sense if we understand Adam is recognized as the one responsible for sin entering the world, although Eve indeed did sin first. Adam is responsible for the act of sin entering the world, not Eve’s specific sin. I’m interested how an egalitarian would reconcile this?”

This is not something that we get to decide. True, that Adam is not responsible for Eve’s sin. The serpent is responsible for Eve sinning, but not for her specific sin. Hosea 6:7 says that Adam dealt treacherously with God. In the Hebrew, the part that NKJV interprets as being unfaithful to God, the Hebrew uses the word treacherous in God. So, we know that Adam’s choice being that he was not deceived, was treacherous toward God. Now that is concrete evidence that sinning deliberately (with full knowledge as Adam had) is different and in God’s eyes is treacherous. In Hosea, Gilead is portrayed as full of people that deliberately commit evil. That is what Adam did. We don’t know why. Not knowing why, many have tried to soft peddle it. Eve, on the other hand, was tricked into making that choice to disobey by the treacherousness of the serpent. They both sinned and both suffered death, the promised result of disobedience of eating forbidden fruit. But the delivery was different. All sin is not the same. Yet all sin will reap the results of that sin.

1 Tim. 1: 13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy,….”

Here we have Paul telling Timothy that he, Paul, obtained mercy because his sinning was ignorant (not aware) and in unbelief. But of course we know that he still reaped the just rewards for his sins. But God was merciful toward him because he was not fully aware of what he was doing. Good thing too because Paul had been persecuting God’s servants.

Eve’s sin fell in the same category. Because she was deceived by the most clever of all creatures, she was not fully aware of what she was doing even though she did it. This did not take away the consequence of the sin, but it did allow God to have some mercy upon her. And, it laid the responsibility for the sin passing into all humanity upon Adam who was not deceived and was completely and fully aware of what he was doing. He dealt treacherously with God. That is why Scripture says that it was through Adam that sin passed into the world. It came through his DELIBERATE FULLY AWARE treacherous treatment of God.

“I believe that yes Adam was the leader before the fall. I believe the fall corrupted this leadership- “

Please cite the Scriptures where God appointed the man as the leader of the woman. I think that will clear this confusion up quickly.

” There is nothing innocent about sin. It is a rejection of God. I hope we can all agree on that. Being ‘decieved’ doesn’t make her innocent.”

No one has suggested that there is anything innocent about sin or that being deceived makes her innocent. Many times over, several have pointed out that both suffered the consequences of sin – death. That is the judgement that God forewarned them would happen if they ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Please read what Cheryl wrote over. I think you will see that.

Perhaps you misunderstand me, Mark. I am not suggesting that all comps foster abusiveness. I am saying that the teachings of male rule of women sets up a paradigm wherein those who are inclined toward abuse find it supports their inclinations of abusiveness. Sadly, I do believe it to be so. This does not negate the many comp men who believe their ‘ruling’ to be benign and benevolent and supportive of women. In many cases it seems so. But not in all cases. I have seen too much heartache to forget.

I am in my sixties now and retired. Traditionalism, including male leadership in home and church is what I was raised on. I do understand the teachings well. In addition I also understand the teaching of the modern complementarian teachings of equal but different, which basically support old traditionalism. And my first church in Christ was steeped in the Shepherding movement.

I also understand the desire to equal the scales by claiming that equality in home and church sets up a paradigm that supports homosexuality. But that is all it is, an attempt to balance the differences. It isn’t true. Spiritual equality in Christ does not include sin.

Mark,
” I would maintain that, at the very least, the preponderance of evidence indicates that God sought out the more craven criminal first.”

That makes excellent sense to me.

” Frankly, if I look at this from a dramatic point of view, I imagine Eve being still a little shell shocked by the whole thing, while Adam knew what he had done all along. It is only fitting that God would deal with the intentional perpetrator before the deceived one.”

Exactly!

” I would hope that would settle the question. Although some people continue to hold out hope that Adam was Eve’s superior in the garden, it is still a baseless hope.”

And pointless of eternal holy values as well. Such a proposal only supports and promotes negatives in life: pride, arrogance, controlling attitudes, demeaning the value of woman’s input, silencing women, giving women personal devalue problems, and great opportunity for abuse from those so inclined.

Kay, this is an excellent Scripture:

” “They shall not labor in vain,?or bear children for calamity…?The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,?the lion shall eat straw like the ox…” (Isaiah 65:23-25)”

It sounds to me as if Isaiah had a different understanding of the Gen. 3 Scriptures than we do today. Isaiah makes good sense.

yes, a work in progress for all of us, gengwall. 🙂

I have trouble with the idea that the woman is punished in being a woman, by making birthing specifically troublesome. IMO it is much much more attributable to the outcome of death in the world, the same as disease, birth deformities, pain and toil.

gengwall, I’m going to respectfully disagree with you on some things in your outline. While I recognize some careful thought in it, I also see some problems.

First some foundational thoughts. God stated the punishment for disobeying Him clearly and repeatedly to both the human and his woman. Disobedience would bring death. God’s punishments are not the same as a human parent spanking a child to dissuade him/her from doing wrong. Basically, God does not punish. God judges and rewards according to the bent of what was done. It is more in line with and similar to reaping what we sow. So no more reward for disobedience than death was due to humanity for their disobedience. Death is sufficient; in fact more than sufficient. It’s all part of a supernatural plan to produce godly seed, and godly people for God. God does not go on and on and add punishments upon punishments just because He is upset with them. He is clear. He was clear. Disobey this important test (but not just a test because it had to do with life everlasting and knowledge of good and evil), and there would be bad results, they would die. God did not say that they would also be punished in various unstated ways. They were clearly warned.

The serpent (and Satan) was not warned. They jumped into the picture on their own. The serpent as the cleverest of all creatures acted on his own willing initiative (though I believe with Satan’s help) and cooked up a scheme to cause and encourage the humans to disobey. Likely, all the heavens heard God’s warnings to the humans not to eat. The serpent (and Satan) wanted the humans to disobey. He acted with malice, great malice. God judged him and rewarded him with a curse that really was not equal to the judgment the serpent caused the humans to bring upon themselves, but would last equally throughout history. Serpents would from then on slither in the dirt on their bellies. This was a just reward. And because Satan had participated in making himself an enemy of the race of humans God had created in His image, then God would say that now Satan would become the enemy of the future Messiah and that the Messiah would win. Bruising the head was akin to crushing it IMO.

When God addressed the woman, He did not phrase it as a curse. Neither did He say, “because you have done this”. These are both formulae for a legal statement. Instead God warned the woman what would come. All of what was said to the woman was/is a result of death. Pain, toil, travailing, etc. are all part of death, not part of life. In heaven all pain, toiling, tears, travailing, torments, etc. will be done away with. They are part of death and something not experienced in Eden. Mashal, is what the husband would respond to the woman’s turning and yearning toward the man, and means harsh rule or domination. This is also part of the result of death of their spirits and living in a dying body.

When God addressed the man, He used both formulae of “because you have:”, and “cursed is”. But God did not curse the man, and instead cursed the ground which would again affect the serpent who would be crawling on his belly on it for all of his life on earth. (remember when Christ cursed the fig tree for not producing?) IMO, this is the place we need to put our brains to work to wonder about.

1. What does God mean by ba’avurekha, on account of you, or for your sake?
2. Is this something to protect the man and humans from the serpents?
3. Are not thorns and weeds part of death, just like flies are born from death?

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

That is a reasonable point. But the fact still remains that God addressed only the man to send him, not them, out of the garden. Perhaps, he wanted to see what the woman would choose to do, perhaps she needed to make her own choice in it, and also God likely knew that she would follow him.