TL

“With the flow of the passage i struggle to see this. Eve’s ‘talking to’ falls directly under the curses of the serpent.”

Why would you think that God’s curses are thrown around without discretion? Cursing is serious. Adam and Eve were forewarned what would happen if they ate the fruit. It was a test. They failed and reaped the results. They were babes. God was just.

The serpent (and Satan) however may not have been been part of the test for the humans. We don’t know. He may have just inserted himself in the whole thing wanting God’s new creatures to fail because he was jealous that they were made in the image of God, which he was not. So, it was just for the serpent to reap a result for his part in deceiving the woman. And that result would be one that would be a reminder that such evil intents don’t get a free pass, slithering along the ground on his belly for ever.

Then when God was talking to the man He notes that Adam deliberately disobeyed and God specifically cursed the ground (because of him) and not Adam (which interestingly also affects the serpent since he would now slither on the ground). God said nothing of this sort to the woman. All of God’s words to the woman are a warning of how life would now be.

I would like to echo Cheryl. Yes, Mark you are appreciated. Sometimes, it seems like you might be irritated with the conversation in your answers. But I still see you make the efforts to be respectful in your disagreements and questions.

blessing to you, brother in the Lord…

oops messed up my formatting……

Mark writes: ”I am worried about the theology that Eve was just ‘decieved’ and Adam deliberately sinned. They both deliberately sinned!”

Eve said she was deceived and Paul in 1 Tim. Agrees that she was deceived. She was deceived and fell into sin. This is different from Adam who was not deceived and deliberately with full awareness (not deceived) choose to sin. You cannot really get around that one. There is a Scripture I think in Hosea, which says that Adam dealt treacherously with God. However, it does not matter how we come to sin, we will still reap the fruit of it if we sin, which is death.

As for them being banished from the garden, I do think they both needed to leave as it would be dangerous for either one of them to eat from the tree of life in their sinful condition. Perhaps, God knew that the woman would follow him. I don’t know. But it does say that the man was banished and says nothing about Eve.

”
I am worried about the theology that Eve was just ‘decieved’ and Adam deliberately sinned. They both deliberately sinned!”

Eve said she was deceived and Paul in 1 Tim. Agrees that she was deceived. She was deceived and fell into sin. This is different from Adam who was not deceived and deliberately with full awareness (not deceived) choose to sin. You cannot really get around that one. There is a Scripture I think in Hosea, which says that Adam dealt treacherously with God. However, it does not matter how we come to sin, we will still reap the fruit of it if we sin, which is death.

As for them being banished from the garden, I do think they both needed to leave as it would be dangerous for either one of them to eat from the tree of life in their sinful condition. Perhaps, God knew that the woman would follow him. I don’t know. But it does say that the man was banished and says nothing about Eve.

Mark writes: “TL,
“The woman was never stated to be the man’s helper.”
Really? Gen 2:18b…”I will make a helper suitable for him.”

I believe I stated that the Bible does not say that the woman was to be the man’s helper as in assistant. “Helper” in English means assistant. Ezer in Hebrew does not mean assistant, but rather strong help.

TL writes””Rather the timing of her creation was after the man realized what aloneness was and how it was not good as God stated, and then the woman was created to allay the man’s aloneness. ”
Mark responds: Where is this in the bible? I dont see anywhere, where Adam said he was lonely. What i do see is God’s comment “that it is not good for ‘the man’ to be alone.” It’s got nothing to do with what Adam wants, but solely what God wanted and ordained”

1. God says (presumably for the benefit of the man to hear) that It is not good that human should be alone, and that God will make him an ezer kenegdo – a strong help equal/comparable to him.
2. God then lets the man view all the created creatures and see what he might name them.
3. After the man was done, he notes that there was no strong help among the creatures that was equal or comparable to him. Thus, he has discovered he was alone and what it feels like. It is easy to see that if the man did not find anyone to be his partner or companion, then he is alone and knows it.
4. At that point, God then causes a deep sleep upon the man and takes from his side, flesh and bones and reforms them into a female who God then presents to the man.

Mark writes:“My view is this- men and women are equal in essence, in the image fo God, but not in function. e.g- Adam is commissioned to look after the Garden and Eve isnt- she is his helper.”
SM responds: “How do you reconcile “Adam is commissioned to look after the Garden and Eve isn’t-she is his helper” with both male and female were to be fruitful, multiply, replenish, subdue and rule (care) for the earth?”

Excellent point sm. In addition ……
God put the human in the garden to tend it because God had a lesson to teach the human. I do not see God saying that in the future the man in commissioned in life to tend gardens and women are not to tend gardens. As sm points out, there is no indication that the woman was going to be restricted from tending gardens when she was created just because the man did so first. This is the beginning of things after all. The woman isn’t “commissioned” as you suggest because she wasn’t created yet, and the lesson to be learned in the garden by the man was foundational to their relationship together. The man needed to learn that it was not good to be alone and that he needed someone to allay (help) his aloneness.

“You continue: “If Adam is the ‘leader’ of Eve, it makes perfect sense that he is the one spoken to by God in those circumstances.””

Perhaps, a bit of logic might help here. God does not always speak only to leaders. God speaks to whomsoever He chooses. And sometimes makes leaders of the insignificant ones of humanity. Just because God chose to speak to someone does not mean that one is or even will be a leader – ever.

Further, God did speak to the woman. To assume God didn’t speak to the woman paints a picture of meanness and special preferring between only two. How could God walk among them and never talk to the woman. And we know that God spoke to the woman because she says so.

”in the second it has to be true that if Adam was the only one banished( Cheryls view), then Adam was the only one who became like God, because again the grammar only refers to ‘the man’. If we take the literal grammatical approach it contradicts with verse 7 where ‘both’ their eyes are opened after eating the fruit. That is they both equally rebelled against God and sinned.”

This is a good point. A couple thoughts …….

It was not merely that he became like God, period. But that he became “as one of us” (like God? Or like the angels I’m not sure) TO KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL. I think that is an important clarification. That makes sense when we remember that the man was not deceived but deliberately disobeyed God with full awareness. Now that is indeed “knowing good and evil”. The man fully learned the difference between good and evil. The woman learned it from a different angle, that of being sinned upon to also commit sin. However, I don’t think the fact that the woman sinned by being deceived would prevent her eyes from being opened at the accomplishment of the sin. God told them both that eating of the fruit would bring death. God did not say that only if one ate deliberately, not being deceived. But I would say that the man learned something different than the woman learned in their disobedience. I wonder if this is why men in general more often commit gross evil than women do.

What we learn from both of them is that there are shared consequences for sinning whether we are deceived into it or freely choose without compulsion.

”My view is this- men and women are equal in essence, in the image fo God, but not in function. e.g- Adam is commissioned to look after the Garden and Eve isnt- she is his helper.”

You are correct that men and women are equal in essence and in the image of God they were created in. But you are incorrect that God had assigned lifelong functions to the genders. The woman was never stated to be the man’s helper. She was not “his” anything. Such language is not in Scripture. Rather the timing of her creation was after the man realized what aloneness was and how it was not good as God stated, and then the woman was created to allay the man’s aloneness. In addition, the meaning of ezer is not ‘helper’ as in an assistant. Ezer is a special word. There are other words that mean help in different ways. Ezer is used in the sense of one who rescues, one who is a strong help. It is used of God and of warriors and armies. There was nothing about roles to play in relationship to each other.

”I also disagree with TL who claims ‘ezer kenegdo’ means equal. This word is used in other parts of the OT in reference to God being our help.”

Ezer means strong help. Kenegdo means facing, counterpart, equal.

”TL, i also disagree that Adam’s exclamation of Eve shows equality, if you mean equality in every way. I think you were right when you said “I do think he was exclaiming that finally there was one like him”. It is simply a statement saying ’she is fellow human, made from me’. It has everything to do with equality of essence, nothing to do with equality of role/function unless you want to read into it. “

Yes, she is equal because she is human. Absolutely. It has nothing to do with roles or functions because no roles or functions were given. It has everything to do with the fact that like the word kenegdo means equal, we are all equally human , with all the same basic capabilities aside from physical differences of gender. Men cannot be women, and women cannot be men. But we are equal in essence.

”What i am saying is that the hebrew grammar only talks about ‘the man’ not man(gender inclusive).”

This would be incorrect. When God created the human, God created the human as male and female. And God named them human. This is all gender inclusive.

”Therefore we can come to 2 conclusions. God addresses ‘the man’ because he is the leader,”

God does not say this. This is an assumption, a reading of intent into Scripture that is not in Scripture

“The problem i have with the TNIV is not what you have shown with the scholars. Merely that it is just another way to water down the text so as not to offend people. If its masc it should be translated masc. Any good exegete can figure out even though Gen 1 is masc that it refering to humanity, not just man.”

Have you actually compared the TNIV to other books yourself. I have. There was a lot of bad press from the publishers of the ESV. IMO this was to sell the ESV…. and that is all.

The actual meaning of the word adham is human, not male human which is the implied meaning of ‘man’.

“Perhaps we could delve a little deeper with more in the text. What does it mean to be created in the image of God? Is it equality? What did Adam mean when he said Eve was ‘bone of my bones’ etc? What is the meaning of becoming one flesh? Is this all equality statements in your opinion?”

Thesis have been written on what it means to be created in the image of God. I’m not convinced it means equal to Eloheim. No one is equal to Eloheim.

When Adam said that this one from him was bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh, I do think he was exclaiming that finally there was one like him. And yes, that would indeed express equality. However, it was God who said that she was to be equal when He said she was ‘ezer kenegdo’. And I don’t think that God was worried about “same as” problems. One can be equal yet different. 🙂

“Neither doe the text say men are women are equal in every way.”

Actually, it does. The phrase ezer kenegdo means the woman is the strong help, equal to the man, that he needs to allay his aloneness.

Also you said “In 3:16 we have God warning Eve of the future changes to their relationship being that in response to her turning toward and yearning for her man, he would harshly dominate her.”

When did this take place?”

Well, it took place in the garden of Eden? God was speaking to the woman not the man and forewarning her that when she teshuqua (impulse toward, turn toward, yearn, desire, etc.) the man his response would be mashal (harsh domination).

These are not commands but statements which foretell what will be.

Also, humans are not to rule animals. Our responsibility is to care for the earth and guard, protect, guide, etc. the creatures in it, including the whales, the wild birds, etc. I’d like to see any person try to rule over an animal not their pet. <> The verb translated “rule” is not the same verb translated “rule” in Gen. 3:16. We are not to dominate anyone, even the creatures of the earth.

In 3:16 we have God warning Eve of the future changes to their relationship being that in response to her turning toward and yearning for her man, he would harshly dominate her.

”Just because English does have a neuter, if we are going to be faithful exegetes we should keep the original masc words translated into masc english words, otherwise we are changing the original language and commentating on it, even though i do agree that it is talking inclusively… sorry for the sidetrack”

Mark, most scholars tirelessly try to explain to us that the masculine endings mean nothing if there is not a masculine subject to point to. In other words all words in Hebrew and Greek (unlike English) have masc. or fem. endings regardless of whether there is anything masculine or feminine about them. This is why I choose to translate the word adham as human. We have confused this by naming only boys Adam in English. But the word really is not a name as much as it is a race identification. They were both named Human by God. The man later chose to keep that his name or maybe the woman in some irritation refused to give him a personal name as he did fondly to her after the fall. So for eternity his ‘name’ got to be ‘From the dirt’ or some such, while her name was something about life and living. So many miss all this incredible drama right in front of our faces because of the foolish fuss over who was first and who was second, as if there were some importance to that.

”In Gen 2 there is the introduction of the definate article so it is rightly translated ‘the man’ dealing directly with Adam not Eve.”

In Genesis 2 the human is the only one there to begin with, so its not really difficult to know who is being dealt with.

”Therefore my argument is that to get hung up on the combined function of ruling animals to prove equality and no leadership soley by the gender inclusive language is weak.”

Actually, it is very easy to prove equality and no leadership, simply because God did not give the man authority over the woman. God did not say it, did not suggest it, did not discuss it. It simply did not exist and was not needed. The concept of male rule versus female rule was an idea added into the Scripture that is not inherent in them.

Gengwall, what do you mean by “free submission”?

I don’t think we should coddle that kind of an expectation. IMO its roots are pride. Whether male or female we should applaud excellence and rejoice in and proud of our brethren in their skills and wisdom. Furthermore our brethren need our input, our skills, our wisdom. To pretend we cannot or don’t know, or don’t understand, so that someone else doesn’t feel slighted may be OK on occasion when someone is down and we are trying to lift them up. But it should not be a way to operate in general.

great word gengwall.

Thank you for that awesome testimony Cheryl. 🙂

Someday perhaps I will share a little of mine as well. Right now I want to just think about what you have said and the great importance of not hindering women from becoming full mature members of the body of Christ. I sometimes weep in my quiet times with God at the loss to the body of Christ because of women who have been kept down, kept child like, kept immature and quiet.

“2. hypotasso has a different meaning than normal”

Regarding hupotasso, Grudem and company have done a swell job of making it function as obedience, which it is not. Hupakouo is the word meaning obedience, which is NOT used regarding wives relationships to husbands. In addition, throughout Pauls writings, he used hupotasso in a passive form: hupotassomai, which almost radically changes the application.

When all Christians are admonished to hupotassomai each other, both the verb form and the context force the meaning into one of personal autonomous choice. We will each decide when, where and how we are to arrange ourselves under each other. Yet we must choose to do so in our relationships. Whether or not someone is foolish enough to command others to obey or yield to them has nothing to do with it. The choice of response is still up to the other person. And they will suffer the consequences of their choices which is only reasonable. Therein is the true meaning of Biblical submission. We are all to be submissive types of people, yielding to others, supporting others, helping others, doing what is beneficial to others. But this is to be a conscious deliberate decision, not just going along with what others may want from us. We are godly people carrying the power of God in our vessels. We are to behave humbly and meekly with this awesome power, and use it as appropriate.

The way some people categorize Christians, one would think that only men are to grow into the fullness of maturity as the Man Christ Jesus and do the works that He did via the Holy Spirit.

“1. kephale has a different meaning than usual
2. hypotasso has a different meaning than normal
3. Whenever we have to change the meanings of words to fit our theology, that rings alarm bells for me.”

That would ring bells with me too. And it has when I’ve seen it happen.

For an indepth look at how kephale was used when Paul wrote the epistles see :
http://powerscourt.blogspot.com/2008/01/index-cbmw-grudem-kephale.html

There is a huge amount of research that proves that kephale was not used to mean ‘authority over’ in metaphors. Here is one small quote….

“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?”

Again, the continuing problem is that the metaphor as a whole is ignored. It is a ‘head of’ and ‘body of’ metaphor. “Body of” has never been used to denote “follower of”. The word OF makes a difference also. OF is different than OVER. OVER is NOT used.

I suggest that we look at the other uses of metaphors of ‘body of’ and ‘head of’.

Also, I find it interesting that gender hierarchalists totally ignore the full picture that Paul is painting in Ephesians of a head and body metaphor, instead opting to pull out one sentence and build another picture of their own.

The head and body metaphor is not about a boss and follower, but about one whole unit that is mutually supporting.

i>”When we argue that the men/women issues were always just cultural i think we are wrong.”

I agree. That is called a “strawman argument” though, because those who believe in Biblical equality do not and have not said that. However, yes the early church was stuck in the culture of their time. It was difficult for Jesus and the disciples to pull them out of doing what they always did. And that is still difficult for believers today.

”If there is no authoritative aspect to a marriage for example, then it is not a true reflection of Christ’s covenant with His church.”

Where do you see that the covenant was built upon authority that is to be transferred to men only? I see the New Covenant built upon sacrifice, God’s Love, mercy and grace, all of which will translate to freedom and maturity for the believer. First we are freed from the power that sin holds over humanity, which results in no longer needing the Old Covenant with it’s ceremonies and sacrifices. We now have Jesus. We are free people born not of the slave but the bond woman. We are free to grow and mature into the fullness of the person of Christ. That is the authority of the believer, to become like Christ and be His hands, feet, arms and spokesperson (of a sort) to the world. And yes, that is loving and serving like Christ did. These are things that every believer has the power via the HS to achieve and do in the world for the benefit of others.

As for marriage, I agree that there is no authority aspect. What there is, is a unity born of mutual give and take. A marriage is built upon the strengths of two people giving into the life of the other, to such a degree that eventually they become as if they were one unit, one body. This is not accomplished by one directing and the other following, but by both giving and both receiving from the other.

Marriage is benefitted by each spouse giving of his/her strengths. A husband has physical strengths that a wife doesn’t and vice versa. A husband has social strengths and connections that a wife doesn’t. His job is to sacrificially use those strengths to benefit his wife, providing for and protecting her. The wife uses her strengths to benefit the husband supporting and providing for his needs as well. Eventually, if done well, the two though still different, know each other so well that they know when to do their part without asking, resulting in a harmonious unity that looks as if they move and live as one unit. And so on ……

“Is this an oxymoron. Isn’t Jesus deity his ‘Godness’ and his ‘humanness’. How can you see the ‘full complete deity of Christ’ in the Old Testament- his deity didn’t exist yet!

OH MY! Jesus tells John in Revelations that He is the Alpha and Omega. That is a reference to the meaning of Yahweh. Yahweh means “I Am, Was, Will be”. It also references that He, Christ as Yahweh, is creator, see John one.

The miracle of Christ is that God (the Trinity) took of Himself and put something of His essence into the womb of a human virgin and we then have God with us in human form, God clothed with human flesh. God does not die or have beginning or not exist and then exist. God causes all to exist and not exist. God created the mechanisms of life. And all the Godhead was involved in creation. Jesus Christ is God clothed in human flesh walking among us, then crucified , suffering everything we suffer, then rising from the dead so that He can then cleanse anyone who believes and trusts in Him, from the power of sin and evil. For only cleansed can we approach the living Holy presence of God.

“I’m not sure why you have come to the conclusion that there is only one will in the Godhead-where is your scriptural basis for this”

Unfortunately I am quite busy today, but I’ll try to get back and comment more. In the meantime, this statement is important.

The Athenasian Creed, which you can find online, was composed to correct a movement that was promoting the error that God the Father was more important, more powerful, having more authority, etc. than God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit. If it were true, then we would have 3 Gods and not One God as Scripture says. Our God is ONE, a perfect unified ONE. None is before or after, none is lessor or more than the other. That is the truth in Scripture. God the Son (Yahweh) calls the Father God. God the Father calls the Son God at whose feet even the angels bow. God the Holy Spirit speak only the word of the Lord, and every word from God is enveloped in the Holy Spirit to be sent where He wills. Christ said we can blaspheme Him (He is both human and God) but if we blaspheme the HS, it is an unforgiveable sin! There is so much throughout Scripture where we see the perfect 3 in ONE unity of the Trinity.

Subordination only entered the picture when YahWeh took on human form to walk among us and became Christ. There was never a need for subordination or obedience (Christ learned obedience – Phil. 2 I think) because they were ONE, having ONE will, ONE authority. They were never in disagreement.

more later….

blessings

Perspectives are interesting. As a woman hearing men who have set for themselves privileges in the church which they deny women, and who have a closed mind to the possibility of changing that, it reads as men who are closed to the value and equal worth of women. It is an arrogance that is deeply uncomfortable for some women to live around.

I remember some men from the 70’s who always spoke to women as “dear” and everything they said to us seemed to drip with an unspoken stance of the big and powerful patting the child like women on their dear little unknowledgeable heads. I was one of those women who finally became really irritated with that word ‘dear’ and forbid them from applying it to me. I noticed though how difficult it was for them to change their way of approaching women. They think women are inferior, no matter what they say to the contrary. It is how they treat the women.

” But the call Paul gives to husbands is even more astounding, and even more threatening and austere and forceful — love your wives as Christ loved the Church. And then Paul goes on to recall the crucifixion of Christ, how he gave himself: WOW! He totally gave himself for her, and Paul is specifically saying that THIS total giving, THIS dying of self and accepting poverty and embracing the cross for the sake of another is what a TRUE husband does.”
“What we have is an emphasis on the POWER of a husband over his wife–the opposite of the order, the new order of life in Christ, that Paul is preaching. In Christ, we have all, husbands and wives, become slaves of one another and of a love that now pervades the universe. What Christians have done with Paul’s word is atrocious to me for just this reason. We appear to have taken one line out of Ephesians and divorced it from the rest of the passage, and the rest of what Paul taught in his other letters about putting other people ahead of ourselves out of reverence for Christ. Christian husbands who demand their wives submit to them based on this scripture are absolute morons for all of these reasons: they bring a total ignorance of scripture to bear in making this demand.”

This is so well said that it just needs repeating. Hopefully, someone some where will ‘get it’. 🙂

“I notice that Piper’s examples are far out–things he thinks no “Christian” husband would do. What he doesn’t realize is that abusers do demand bizarre, weird and harmful acts. But those to whom wife submission is one of the top 10 biblical checkpoints, easily dismiss the fact that they are bizarre and focus instead on the wife’s supposed error.”

It seems to me that Piper is well aware that there are men who demand a type of obeisance that is bizarre. What he is protecting is his right to have the special privileges, the right to control and direct, the right to always have the last say, the right to have to be approached as the king of the house. Equal value and worth is the last thing they want to actually experience personally in the home and church.

A. Amos Love,

People become Christians when we realize our need of a relationship with God. We know we are sinners. The problems come in when some think they no longer sin and need to be accountable to no one.

“2-husband of one wife — married, male.”

The Grk. means ‘one woman man’. It is an idiom meaning faithful. It was discovered by a French writer. The idiom is an old one, and found on the tombs of both men and women.

There is a word play with the beginning statement “Faithful is the Word”. To take away from the idiom, changes the word play and emphasis. Paul is emphasizing the characteristics of a faithful type of person.

We still use that idiom today in English when we say that soandso is a ‘one woman kind of guy’ or ‘one man type of woman’. I suspect that it is used all over the world.

“Unless….that is….one wishes to characterize those who partake in hierarchy as not being part of God’s Church….. I’m not willing to make that leap.”

Neither am I. There are plenty of times that Christians don’t act very godly, holy, loving, etc. But we came to Christ messed up and we’ll still be messed up until we allow Him to cleanse and redirect us. For some people in some areas, it will take most of their lives. And some people in some areas will never allow God in. But they are still Christians until they somehow deny Christ.