Browsed by
Category: In the beginning – Genesis

Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? to enter the digital future

Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? to enter the digital future

WIM digital

Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? will soon be available online!

Update: I have posted all of the videos from Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? DVD series free online! The first DVD is found online here and the rest of the video files are linked on that page as well. The link is to my new Women in Ministry blog. Please sign up at the new site for updates.

____

I am working on a new video project at the moment, but I am also working to convert each of the 4 DVDs of Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? to a lower quality online downloadable product. We are working hard so that those with computers around the world may also have access to the DVDs.  The entire set will be available for purchase online or each DVD in the 4 DVD set will be available individually as a video download.  We have upgraded the security on our website and we are presently working through all of the logistics to make this all possible.  it is a huge step forward for our ministry.  If all goes well, we will start offering the downloadable version this fall (2012).  Please watch this blog for further information for the launch of the downloadable version.

The DVDs also include audio bytes from those who disagree with women in ministry and we break down the arguments and compare the arguments to the Scriptures.

The 4 DVDs are broken up into scriptural passages as follows: 

Read More Read More

What God intended at Creation – ruler or ruled?

What God intended at Creation – ruler or ruled?

Ruler or ruled? Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

What did God intend at creation?

It seems that everywhere we look these days, complementarian men are quoting the act of creation as God’s intention to put the women underneath the rule of the man.  They are also quick to note that there are two different kinds of rulership of the male. The first kind of male rule is that of an autocrat, tyrant or despot who rules in spite of the woman’s own will or intention.  This kind of rule, they say, is not what is taught by Christian men. The second kind of rulership is described by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as headship and this is defined as “two spiritually equal human beings, man and woman, the man bears the primary responsibility to lead the partnership in a God-glorifying direction.” (pg 95 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood a Response to Evangelical Feminism edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem).  The difference between the two rulerships is that one allows the man to rule the woman for his own benefit and the other rulership has the man ruling the woman for the benefit of God as a God-ordained spiritual leader.

Let’s unpack this down to the presuppositions that are required to form the foundation of the God-ordained male rule. This post will consider the first two claims of male-only rule: 

Read More Read More

Eve as the outline, pattern and prototype in 1 Timothy 2:14

Eve as the outline, pattern and prototype in 1 Timothy 2:14

Eve is the outline on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

This post is the second part of an expansion on the reasons why I believe that 1 Timothy 2:11-15 is about one specific woman and why a general reference to women does not line up with the grammar within the surrounding context.  The first points 1 – 4 are discussed here. This post will deal with points 5 – 8 and an additional question about why the particular woman might not have been lumped together with the other false teachers in chapter 1.

5.  Paul creates an outline or pattern of Eve  in verse in 1 Timothy 2: 13 that fits the situation of a one specific deceived woman referred to in 1 Timothy 2:14 as the woman.

Read More Read More

Submission and the origin of authority

Submission and the origin of authority

Authority given on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

When is authority given and when can it be rightfully assumed?  These are questions that have divided egalitarians and complementarians in the area of marriage.  While egalitarians generally will agree that submission is a characteristic of Spirit-filled Christians who love and respect the body of Christ, and who serve each other with love, complementarians say that husbands are never commanded to submit to their wives because husbands maintain a God-given sphere of authority that requires sacrifice and not submission.  To a complementarian, submission is always something given to an authority.  Since they don’t believe that a wife has authority over a husband they refuse to submit to their wives.  Is this Biblical? 

Read More Read More

Sin nature through the man part 2

Sin nature through the man part 2

Sin nature through the man on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The comments on the original post have gone over 400 comments and for some reason the original page is not properly loading just by the link so I will need to find out what the problem is.  It does look fine when one goes to http://strivetoenter.com/wim and then scroll down to the March 26, 2010 post called “Adam and Eve and the sin nature that comes through the man – how does this affect the issue of women in ministry?”  It is loading okay that way so that one can read the post but when one tries to read the comments that page won’t load.  **update – It looks like the 175 pages of comments was just too much for the blog post and there is nothing I can do to get the comments to show up.  In future I will try to start a second page sooner so that this doesn’t happen again** (Note – Dec 2012: I have updated the blog and I think all the comments are now back.)

In the meantime the comments can continue on this post.

The dialog has been lively and Mark our regular complementarian blog visitor has been going through his Calvinist proof texts with me as we dialog on John 6 verse by verse discussing sin and free will.  Future comments should continue on this new part 2 post. 

Read More Read More

Complementarians, why let women lead Bible studies?

Complementarians, why let women lead Bible studies?

Woman Bible Teacher from Women in Ministry - Cheryl Schatz

CBMW (Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) has set itself up as a go-to organization for those complementarians who have not been able to figure out from the Bible which things are allowable for women and which things are not.  But does their counsel exceed the Bible?  I would like to present the evidence and then let you decide.

In a sermon preached by J Ligon Duncan III and reproduced on CBMW’s web site, Ligon Duncan writes that the “teaching office” of the Church is restricted to men.  But what is the “teaching office” of the church?  According to Ligon, the “teaching office” is “ministry of preaching and teaching in the church is undelegatably vested in the men who serve as the elders of the church.”  So the on-going preaching and teaching to the body of Christ is to be done by men.   The problem really gets sticky for complementarians when it comes to women teaching other women. 

Read More Read More

The path of the Last Adam

The path of the Last Adam

he Path of the Last Adam/ Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The path of the last Adam was a path that took Him from Heaven to earth, from the earth to the grave and from the grave to resurrection power on display as our  Lord, Savior and King.  But a study in contrast with the first Adam shows us the stark contrast to the faithfulness that the last Adam offers us in the place of the failure that we have experienced with our first earthly father.

1.  Sinner vs Sinless 

Read More Read More

Adam and Eve, the sin nature through the man, and women in ministry

Adam and Eve, the sin nature through the man, and women in ministry

Hung out to dry on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The question has come up on this blog whether Adam had a sin nature at the fall that would have been passed on to all of us and if this is an issue that is important regarding women in ministry.  After all we need to know why it is that only Adam would bring sin into the world and if all of us have something “hanging” onto us from just on man, why is that? We need to know why sin didn’t come into the world through the woman.  Is this because she was “under” the man so that anything she did was not placed on her account but on his account?  These questions and more will be answered in this post. 

Read More Read More

Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority

Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority

man's authority on Women in Ministry Blog by Cheryl Schatz

In our continued topic of common objections to women in ministry, we come to the claim that Eve usurped Adam’s authority when she spoke to the serpent. To deal with this claim, we will be looking at both the claim that Eve rebelled against Adam in the garden and the claim that God gave Adam a responsibility to lead that He clearly denied to Eve.

In chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr headship is defined as a right that the man possesses to lead women in a God-glorifying direction. Ortlund writes

Read More Read More

Puzzling question: Why was Eve "punished" when she was deceived?

Puzzling question: Why was Eve "punished" when she was deceived?

punish2 on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

In our discussions on Genesis there has been one puzzling question.  If Adam alone sinned willfully and the woman fell into sin through deception, then why did God punish Eve so severely for her sin?

I would like to propose that we have misunderstood what happened when God dealt with Adam, the woman and the serpent.  There are only two acts by God that deal with guilt and curses and not three as tradition has taught us.  Let’s look carefully at the passage.  First of all let’s look at how God dealt with the serpent: 

Read More Read More

Common objections: women are more easily deceived

Common objections: women are more easily deceived

Easily deceived graphic on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

Another reason some complementarians claim for denying women opportunities to minister in the church is that it is said that women are more easily deceived than men so men alone are permitted to minister in the church.  A good example of this kind of rationale is found here with this excerpt: 

Read More Read More

Common Objections to Women in Ministry: Adam names Eve

Common Objections to Women in Ministry: Adam names Eve

name on Women in Ministry Blog by Cheryl Schatz

One of the positions that complementarians commonly hold is that male and female were created with distinct roles so that one (the male) is said to have been given the authority over the other (the female) and the fact that Adam names Eve is used as proof of the man’s authority.  CMBW (The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) records it this way:

Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. Gen. 1:26-27 makes clear that male and female are equally created as God’s image, and so are, by God’s created design, equally and fully human. But, as Gen. 2 bears out (as seen in its own context and as understood by Paul in 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2), their humanity would find expression differently, in a relationship of complementarity, with the female functioning in a submissive role under the leadership and authority of the male.

Read More Read More

Common objections to women in ministry: God's design in Genesis

Common objections to women in ministry: God's design in Genesis

designed on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

How is it that there are millions of Christians who all look to the same Genesis account yet find themselves with different and contradictory truth claims from the same account?  While many conclude that man was designed in a special way that sets him above the woman with special God-given privileges, there are still many others who conclude that God created both man and woman as equal rulers over creation. We all need to be careful that we don’t just see what we want to see because there is a tendency for each one of us to read our own position into the account. But as Christians we should desire to value truth above all else  for it is God’s design that we want to discover, not mankind’s aberration of God’s design.

As we search diligently in the creation account in Genesis, we look for how God conveyed His design differences to the attention of the first man and woman. Did the man know that he had been designed differently? Did he know that his design gave him special privileges that were withheld from his wife because she did not have the same design? And was it conveyed to Eve that she was not on the same level as Adam?  According to Ray Ortlund, God gave the man a special mission and a special “call” to accomplish and the woman had a special mission to please him. 

Read More Read More

Southwestern Seminary asserts policy of male headship

Southwestern Seminary asserts policy of male headship

paige-patterson on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The Associated Baptist Press reports that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary adopted a policy statement October 21, 2009, that asserts that men and women are equal before God but created for specific roles of either headship (authority) or submission in both the home and in the church.

Paige Patterson, the president of Southwestern, was among those who drafted the Danvers Statement in 1987.  

Read More Read More

Does a woman need a spiritual covering?

Does a woman need a spiritual covering?

umbrella2 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

Does a woman need a human spiritual “covering”?

Submission and authority are a big issue in the church today.  Closely tied into the issue of authority is the teaching that women need a spiritual “covering.”  Men, we are told, are to be the spiritual “covering” to provide protection and to allow the man to have the accountability. But is a human “covering” a Biblical teaching?  There is no New Testament concept of a human “covering” and only one clear human “covering” in the Old Testament. Please note that part 2 of this article is now up at my new blog at https://mmoutreach.org/wim/2018/02/13/christian-woman-spiritual-covering/

There was a tradition in the Old Testament of the kinsman redeemer who would “redeem” a widow by marrying the widow of a deceased relative.

Ruth 3:9  He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth your maid. So spread your covering over your maid, for you are a close relative.”

Ruth 3:10  Then he said, “May you be blessed of the LORD, my daughter. You have shown your last kindness to be better than the first by not going after young men, whether poor or rich.

Ruth 3:11  “Now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you whatever you ask, for all my people in the city know that you are a woman of excellence.

Ruth 3:12  “Now it is true I am a close relative; however, there is a relative closer than I.

Ruth 3:13  “Remain this night, and when morning comes, if he will redeem you, good; let him redeem you. But if he does not wish to redeem you, then I will redeem you, as the LORD lives. Lie down until morning.”

Read More Read More

Do the genders have different functions?

Do the genders have different functions?

I am creating a new post to continue the great discussion that we have been having on a previous post while I am out of the country.  The original discussion is on this post http://mmoutreach.org/wim/2009/07/05/wayne-grudem-part-2/ and since we have grown to over 240 comments, I would ask that we continue our discussions with Mark the complementarian here.

Did Adam rule the animals and the woman at Creation?

Did Adam rule the animals and the woman at Creation?

kittens on Women in Ministry by Cheryl Schatz

Those who argue for the permanent subordination of women will frequently use the argument that  Adam named the animals and that this showed his unique “role” given to him by God.

In a CBMW article written by Bruce Ware, Dr. Ware makes it clear that Adam was given an authority in the beginning of creation that the woman was not given.

Read More Read More

Neopatriarch once again fails to refute Cheryl Schatz

Neopatriarch once again fails to refute Cheryl Schatz

Cheryl Schatz blog Women in Ministry

Neopatriarch has taken a second stab at trying to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as he has rewritten his article.  Once again he has failed to poke a hole in my argument but this time he has dropped the charge that I am exasperating.  Good for Neopatriarch for taking a much kinder tone in his introduction!  He nows calls it his “canned response”.   From reading the comments, it appears that Neopatriarch has come to the understanding that brothers and sisters in Christ can argue their position passionately without attacking the other person’s character and their motives.  This is certainly a change in his approach and I commend him for that.

Read More Read More

Round 7 Interview with the Apostle Paul – Adam's accountability

Round 7 Interview with the Apostle Paul – Adam's accountability

Adam's accountability

This is the seventh in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian is questioning Paul on why the man alone brought sin into the world.  Let’s listen in.  (Links to the previous interviews are at the bottom of this post.)

Read More Read More

Round 6 Interview with the Apostle Paul – back to Genesis

Round 6 Interview with the Apostle Paul – back to Genesis

Giraffes on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

This is the sixth in a series of simulated interviews with the Apostle Paul taken from the position of what he might say if we could transport Paul from the New Testament account through a time tunnel into our present day.

Doug, a strong complementarian has been patiently waiting to question Paul on his reference to the order of creation in 1 Timothy 2:13.  Let’s listen in.  (The previous interviews are linked at the bottom of this post.)

____________________________________________________

Paul: Grace and peace brother Doug.

Doug: It has been days since you were here last.  I was worried that you might not come back.   What took you so long?

Read More Read More

Did God give up on the woman?

Did God give up on the woman?

pregnant on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

Many people think that God was especially hard on Eve after she was deceived by the serpent in the garden.  In fact hierarchists have determined that God was so hard on Eve by punishing her with a multitude of lashes for her sin, that some might get the idea that God punished the one who was deceived in a more severe way than the one who sinned willfully and without remorse.  Others are so confused about what God said to Eve many think that sexuality is a necessary evil that came after Adam and Eve left the garden, since Eve experienced no pregnancy before they left the garden.  Understanding exactly what God did say to Eve can help to remove the misconceptions.

God’s words to Eve gives us the reason why Eve did not get pregnant in the garden after her marriage to Adam.  It would not have been because Adam and Eve did not have normal marital relations.  After all God blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply and marital relations is the normal way of making that happen.  However Adam and Eve were created to live without dying and in that original creation, Eve’s rate of conception was not the same as it was after she ate the fruit and became subject to death.  Let’s look at the first part of God’s words to Eve  in Genesis 3:16.

Read More Read More

Adam's sin imputed to Eve?

Adam's sin imputed to Eve?

Cheryl Schatz Adam's sin 4

 

One of the most bizarre teachings of CBMW is the one taught in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in chapter 3 written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr.  Here Mr. Ortlund states that God pronounced the death sentence on Adam alone so that Eve died not because she ate of the forbidden fruit.  According to Ortlund she died because of Adam’s sin.  On page 110, Mr. Ortlund writes:

The fourth point here is that God told Adam alone that he would die.  But Eve died, too.  Why then did God pronounce the death sentence on Adam alone?  Because, as the head goes, so goes the member. [emphasis mine]

Read More Read More

Adam and his Ms. organ

Adam and his Ms. organ

Cheryl Schatz Adam and his Ms. organ

The creation account has been used by many as a foundation to produce myths and stories.  While this post will concentrate on modern day myths, it is also helpful to understand some of the historical myths about the creation of male and female.

One of the myths of creation comes from Plato where the androgynous sex existed as what humans were in the beginning. Here is the edited speech at the Banquet by Aristophanes (189e-193b of Plato’s Symposium):

“Anciently….the androgynous sex existed…coupled back to back…till jealous Jupiter divided then vertically …as people cut eggs with hairs…after then, these divided and imperfect folk ran about over the earth ever seeking their lost halves to be joined to them again…and the reason being that human nature was originally one, and the desire and pursuit of the whole is called love…..”

Another version is concerning Hermaphroditos who was a Greek androgynous deity.

Read More Read More

Did the first man give woman her self-understanding?

Did the first man give woman her self-understanding?

Was the first man needed to give woman her self-understanding?  According to Raymond C. Ortlund Jr. pastor of Immanuel Church in Nashville, the answer is yes.

ray_ortlund1

Ortlund has written chapter three of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood CBMW’s book. In this chapter,  Ortlund says:

In designating her “Woman” the man interprets her identity in relation to himself.  Out of his own intuitive comprehension of who she is, he interprets her as feminine, unlike himself, and yet as his counterpart and equal.  Indeed, he sees in her his very own flesh.  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.  (emphasis mine)

Let me ask a couple of questions.  Who explained to the man who he himself was for his own self-understanding?

Read More Read More

Raymond Ortlund says creation order needed to not obscure nature

Raymond Ortlund says creation order needed to not obscure nature

distort1 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

In our discussion of CBMW’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, continuing on in chapter 3 in the writings of Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., Mr. Ortlund redefines the creation account in such a way that God’s creation of the male first is said to be necessary in order that the nature of the male and female is not obscured.  Ortlund writes on page 102:

God did not make Adam and Eve from the ground at the same time and for one another without distinction.  Neither did God make the woman first, and then the man from the woman for the woman.  He could have created them in either of these ways so easily, but He didn’t.  Why?  Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear. (emphasis is mine)

Ortlund’s presumption here is quite clear from this chapter.  God made man first, according to Ortlund, to show that woman-

…was not his (man’s) equal in that she was his “helper”.

and

A man, just by virtue of his manhood, is called to lead for God.  A woman, just by virtue of her womanhood, is called to help for God. (my emphasis)

When Ortlund says that creating man and woman at the same time would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood, what is he talking about?  Ortlund is not defining “manhood” as being male or “womanhood” as being female.  He is defining “manhood” and “womanhood” by the preconceived “roles” that he has assigned to each one.   “Manhood” is now the responsibility to take dominion over the female and to lead her in ways that she supposedly was created to need leading in.  Roles then, assigned by the timing of the creation of humanity, are what separates the genders and what creates the priority for the male.  But is this truly why God created the male first?  Was God giving us a hint that there was a priority in rule and leadership given to the male because he was created first from the dirt?

Let’s reason from the scriptures and think these things through thoughtfully and carefully.  First of all, we have to agree with Ortlund that God could have created the man and the woman from the dirt at the same time.  We also can ask the same question, why did God choose from his own sovereign will to create the man and the woman at different times and in different ways?  Why did God not create the woman from the dirt just like he had created the man?

First of all let’s look at all the bible verses that say that the male is to have leadership over the female because of his first creation.  There are exactly zero verses in the scripture giving first creation status to the male for leadership over the female.  The only verses that talks about a cause and effect regarding the order of creation are in 1 Timothy 2:13, 14.

1 Timothy 2:13  For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:14  And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

Here we see that the discussion of the second one created is tied to deception and the first one created is tied to not deceived.  There is zero connection to male leadership.  The fact is that male leadership would have to be read into the passage instead of pulled out of it because leadership of the male is certainly not in the passage.

So if the first one created is never tied into leadership, then what was the point of creating the man first?  Why couldn’t Eve have been created at the same time right there beside Adam from her side of the dirt bed?

The reason is because God sovereignly chose to create the woman from the man’s body for two reasons and the reasons have absolutely nothing to do with leadership.

1.  The woman was created from the man’s body in order for her to be identified as belonging to him in a one-flesh union with the man in the most intimate of relationships.

If the woman had been created from the dirt beside the man, she would not have been flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.  So if God wanted the woman created not as separate flesh, but in an unmistakable identify with Adam, God had to create him first so that there was a rib that could be taken out to create the woman.  By creating the man first and by allowing him to take on a task designed to show him his lack of a mate, the man was prepared to receive his one-flesh partner.

2.  The woman was created from the man’s body in order for her to be a physical descendant of Adam through whom the Messiah could come but without the taint of Adam’s sin.

Before God created Adam and Eve, he knew that the fall would happen and it was his own plan and design that the Word of God would come to take on the flesh of humanity as a true Kinsman Redeemer.  This Redeemer was to be both God and man, but it was also necessary for the Redeemer to have a physical blood line back to Adam, yet without the taint of sin.  In God’s divine plan, it wasn’t an option that Eve was created from Adam’s body, but an absolute necessity because of the pre-planned salvation of mankind.  You will need to click on the image below or on the highlighted words  to go to the illustrated post where God’s sovereign plan is diagrammed showing how the Messiah came as a son of Adam but without the taint of Adam’s sin.

Adam and Eve 2

After viewing the diagrams of God’s wisdom in the order of creation, isn’t God’s plan for mankind and the redemption of mankind marvelously revealed through the Designer’s plan of Eve’s creation from Adam’s own body?  When you viewed the illustrated post linked above, were you able to see God’s ultimate design plan that was designed to effectively bypass the stain of Adam’s sin?  Does this  make much more biblical sense than the unscriptural idea of assigning the role of  “leader”  to the first one created when God never assigns this role to the male in creation?   Can you see how the physical connection of Eve back to Adam is not an unplanned side thought but rather God’s wonderful pre-planned design?

Instead of considering the plan of salvation that was designed before the world was created, Ortlund sees the first creation of the male as a sign of power and rule and primary responsibility.   He reasons that having woman created at the same time would “obscure” manhood and womanhood because then primary “roles” could not be assigned to the first and the second.  For Ortlund, having Adam and Eve created at the same time with both of them from the dirt would be a missed opportunity for God to hint to us that the second one created was made to be “inequal” in leadership behind the first created.  But may I respectfully say that what Ortlund has completely failed to present in his chapter in CBMW’s book is the redemptive reason for Eve’s creation second as God’s pre-thought-out creation to come from Adam’s own body.

Instead of giving the Designer praise for the plan of redemption mirrored in the order of creation, Raymond C. Ortlund’s focus is on a prideful “royal prerogative” extended to the man.

Next post we will be continuing on in chapter three of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and I will throw out for discussion the different theories about what came out of Adam that was used to become the woman.

The Emperor has no clothes

The Emperor has no clothes

Emperor on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

In the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood’s book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, chapter 3 is written by Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr. and called “Male-Female Equality and Male Headship Genesis 1-3” but honestly, I think it could be retitled “The Emperor has no clothes” a thoughtful comment from a child in the fairytale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes“.  This chapter in CBMW’s book is one of the most fanciful reworking of the Genesis account that I have ever seen.  Take for example the reworking of sin to be “operating on Eve’s mind” even before sin entered the world.

On page 106 Ortlund writes:

Eve hadn’t even known that there was a “problem”.  But the Serpent’s prejudiced question unsettles her.  It knocks her back on her heels.  And so the Serpent engages Eve in a reevaluation of her life on his terms.  She begins to feel that God’s command, which Adam had shared with her has to be defended…Eve’s misquote reduces the lavish generosity of God’s word to the level of mere, perhaps grudging, permission…

After the words “which Adam had shared with her”, Ortlund inserts a note number 39 and the end notes from chapter 3 note 39 reads:

Read More Read More

Did the serpent have more knowledge than man?

Did the serpent have more knowledge than man?

serpent2 on Women in Ministry blog by Cheryl Schatz

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood has published a book called Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and on page 73, John Piper and Wayne Grudem write that Adam was ordained as the one responsible for the life of the garden.  The reference is in response to a quote from 1 Timothy 2:14 where Adam is said to have not been deceived. Some take this as a proof that women are more gullible than men and easier to deceive, but Grudem and Piper say that this is not so.  Instead, CBMW brings a new meaning to “not deceived”.  They say “not deceived” means that Adam was not approached by the deceiver.  They write:

If this is the proper understanding, then what Paul meant in 1 Timothy 2:14 was this:  “Adam was not deceived (that is, Adam was not approached by the deceiver and did not carry on direct dealings with the deceiver), but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (that is, she was the one who took up dealings with the deceiver and was led through her direct interaction with him into deception and transgression).”

Since when does “not deceived” mean that you must have a direct interaction with the deceiver? 

Read More Read More

The sin of the man

The sin of the man

We have been looking at Genesis 3 and the fall of man.  In this post I want to concentrate on Genesis 3:22-24 to see what we can understand from God’s words that result in God’s actions and why God judges differently between the man and the woman by bringing sin into the world only through the man.

In a previous post we saw that the original Hebrew reveals that God said “Behold, the man was like one of Us….” There is no justification in the original Hebrew for the translation that man became like God when he ate the fruit.  This is a very significant point.  God said that man was created like God and now he has added to that creation the experience of evil.  In his fallen state his inclination would be to partake of what now is forbidden to him which previously was given freely.  The tree of life was given to Adam to enjoy the fruit but must now be taken away to fulfill God’s word that “in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die”.

Would Adam reach out to take of the fruit of the tree of life in his sinful state?  The actions of God prove that this would be the case.

Genesis 3:23  therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
Genesis 3:24  So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

The “sending” of God was for the man to work the ground from which he had been taken.  Adam was sent to work the ground that had become cursed because of Adam’s two failures.  But did Adam go when he was sent?  Verse 24 shows that Adam was not inclined to obey at all.  In fact God’s actions show that Adam was defiant.  God had to literally drive the man out of the garden.  The Hebrew shows an action of force.  It was not Adam’s will to leave the garden.  Adam was forced out because Adam was living in open defiance of God.  Adam was the one who sinned with his eyes wide open and now Adam was the one who was trying to defy God’s judgment by refusing to leave the garden.

After God forced Adam out, God set up a second watchman.  According to Genesis 2:15, Adam was God’s original watchman for the garden of Eden. The Hebrew word translated as “keep” means to guard and keep watch.  This is a designated watchman.  Now God sets up a second watchman after the first watchman morally failed at his watch.  In Genesis 3:24, God sets up the cherubim to guard the way to the tree of life.  Because of the moral failure of the first watchman, God must install a second watchman whose purpose it now was to protect the tree of life from the unfaithful first watchman.

Where does God show a difference between the way that he treated Adam and the way that he treated the woman?  We see that God did not provide a curse because of the woman’s fall into sin.  God said to the serpent “because you have done this” and animals received a curse through the actions of the serpent and to Adam “Because you have listened…and ate….” and the earth was cursed because of the actions of Adam.  Yet the woman did not receive a curse from God nor was anything cursed because of her actions.  We also see that God did not drive out the woman from the garden.  Only the man was driven out.  Only the man was the defiant one who willfully chose to sin and willfully chose to continue to disobey by refusing to leave.  The treachery of Adam is described by God in Hosea 6:7 –

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

If Adam was defiant and dealt treacherously against God by morally failing because he was silent at his watchman’s post, why has it been a tradition in the church that Adam brought sin into the world because he was an appointed unique ruler of the human race?  Did God set Adam up as sole king of the world?  Or did God show that Adam was tainted with treason because he was the watchman who listened to the deception, he wasn’t deceived but he failed to shout the warning to stop the deception and the one deceived from falling prey to the deceiver?

The silent watchman ate the fruit without being deceived.

The silent watchman blamed his failures on God and his wife.

The silent watchman defiantly refused to leave the garden.

The silent watchman was replaced with God’s faithful watchman.

The silent watchman was unfaithful to God by allowing the innocent to become ensnared on his appointed watch.

The silent watchman then willingly and against his position as a watchman, took the fruit from the hand of his deceived wife and he defied God by eating.

Now some questions for discussion:

1. Why do you think that Eve was not kicked out of the garden?

2.  Why did Eve leave the garden if she wasn’t kicked out?

3.  Why has the church been so focused on trying to prove that Adam alone was a unique ruler over mankind?

4. Was it Adam’s position as ruler that brought sin into the world or was it his treason and open defiance that brought sin into the world?

Satan the liar or truth teller part 2

Satan the liar or truth teller part 2

We have been looking at Jesus’ words in John 8:44 which says that there is no truth in satan.  We are comparing this to satan’s words through the serpent in Genesis 3:5 and God’s words in Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:5 “For God knows that in the day that you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and  you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Genesis 3:22  Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; …”

Let’s compare the words in these two verses.

Genesis 3:5 the serpent said that God knows.  God knows what?  The serpent gives a time frame “in the day that you eat from it”.  What will happen on that day?  Their eyes will be opened (this is presented as a good thing) and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

Here we have the serpent saying that Adam and his wife will become something that they are not now and it will be a good thing.  It will make them “like” God.  The implication then is also that God experiences both good and evil.  But does he?  The word for “knows” and “knowing” is the Hebrew “yada” and its primary meaning means to know relationally and experientially.  What the serpent is saying is that God experientially “knows” evil as well as good.

Now let’s see what God says that is different from what the serpent has said:

In Genesis 3:22 the English is opposed to the original Hebrew and the most authentic versions.  The Hebrew “hayah” (English translated as “has” become) is the third person preterite tense, and signifies was, not is.  The same tense is translated in the Samaritan text, the Samaritan version, the Syriac, and the Septuagint.  Adam Clarke says that “These lead us to a very different sense…”  God is saying “Behold the man was like one of us…”  God is not agreeing with satan that the likeness with God came on the day of their eating the fruit but the likeness started on their day of creation.  They were like God in the beginning.

The distortion here is in the time frame and the grammar.  The serpent said that they will become like God on the day they eat the fruit.  That is a lie. God said they already were like him…until they ate the fruit.

Adam Clarke says that there is “an ellipsis of some words which must be supplied in order to make the sense complete.”  This apparently is not uncommon with Hebrew where the basic information is given and you complete the sense.  Adam Clarke goes on to quote a very learned man who fills in the blanks this way:

“And the Lord God said, The man who was like one of us in purity and wisdom, is now fallen and robbed of his excellence; he has added “ladaath” to the knowledge of the evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever in this miserable state, I will remove him, and guard the place lest he should reenter.”

The deception was that there was something more in store for them to be like God.  But God does not experience evil.  Instead of finding themselves like God, they became very much unlike him because they added evil to their experience of good.

So it is true what Jesus said that there is no truth at all in satan.  Even though he comes as close as he can to the truth, he twists it and distorts it so that it says something completely different.  Adam and his wife did not become like God on the day that they ate the fruit.  Their sinless existence was shattered and they became very much unlike God in their experience.  Their eyes were opened as the serpent said they would be, but the opening of their eyes was to evil and not to a new dimension of Godhood.

Satan the liar or truth teller?

Satan the liar or truth teller?

In this post I would like to talk about one verse and its application to the book of Genesis.

John 8:44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

What does it mean when it says that there is “no truth in him”?  Does this mean that Satan is incapable of telling the truth?  If Satan is incapable of telling the truth is Genesis 3:5 a lie?

Genesis 3:5  “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

We have God telling us in Genesis 3:22

Genesis 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; …”

Is there any difference between what Satan said and what God said?

Before I tell you what I think, I would like to know what you think.  How do you reconcile Jesus’ words that say that there is no truth in Satan and the words in Genesis 3:5 compared to Genesis 3:22?

Next post we will discuss more answers.

Was Eve mistaken?

Was Eve mistaken?

In our continuing discussions on the fall of man we have dealt with the issue of Adam as guardian of the garden and the charge against Eve that she added to God’s word.  In this post I will deal with the position that Eve did not sin by adding to God’s word but she was merely mistaken regarding what God said.

Let’s start with a question.  If Eve was mistaken, what caused her to be mistaken?  Let’s consider the options.

1.  Adam heard the command from God but he added to God’s word when he told the woman that God said “You (plural) shall not eat from it or touch it…”  Eve was mistaken because Adam lied to her.

Is this a viable option?

If it was Adam who added to God’s word, then it was Adam who sinned in this way in addition to eating the fruit.  If this is true, we can ask the very same questions as we did when we considered if the woman added to God’s word.  How can we charge Adam with this sin if there is no charge of adding to God’s words in the text?  Who is a witness against Adam?  Did God say anything about this sin to Adam?  No he didn’t but he should have reproved him if Adam was guilty.

Deuteronomy 12:32  “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Deuteronomy 4:2  “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6  Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

Since there are no witnesses at all to convict Adam, without any evidence to indict Adam of adding to God’s words, and God himself said nothing about this “sin”, we must see Adam as innocent of this charge.

Let us look at the next option.

2.  Adam added his own command to his wife after God’s command.  Adam heard the command from God and gave the command to his wife exactly as it was given to him in Genesis 2.  However after giving her God’s command, he added his own command to his wife that she was not to touch the fruit and it was this command from Adam that the woman mistook as God’s command.

Is this a viable option?

If we are to believe God’s word exactly as it is written, this option is also not viable.  Why not?  It is because the inspired words are a double plural “you”.  The inspired text from the Hebrew says “not you (plural) shall eat from it and not you (plural) shall touch it…”  See the literal Hebrew words and grammar here.   If the inspired words are both the plural “you”, then they cannot be a mix of what God said (“you” plural) and what Adam would have said to his wife (singular “you”).  If Adam had added his own command it would either be you (singular) or we (plural).  It would not be the plural word “you”.  For those of us who believe that God’s word is inspired without error with inspired words and inspired grammar, this option does not appear at all to be a viable option.

Let’s look at the next options.

3.  The woman was mistaken because she was hard of hearing.

This option is nothing more than speculation since the woman was created as a completely whole person with all of her faculties in place.

4.  The woman was mistaken because she had a memory problem.

Again this option is speculative and since the woman’s brain did not have mental deterioration and she was created as a completely whole person with all of her faculties in place, we can reject this one as well.

5.  The woman was mistaken because she was childlike and couldn’t get a simple command correct.

This option would refute the fact that God created the woman as a “helper” for the man.  God himself is often called a “helper” in scripture and it is a word of strength describing a person who brings aid to one who is in need of the aid.  If she was the one who provided aid to meet Adam’s need, she couldn’t have been a drainer – one who by her very nature needed to be constantly supervised so she wouldn’t mess things up.

None of these options fits the biblical text.  What can we conclude?  We must conclude that to say that Eve was mistaken about what God said is a view that is without any solid biblical support.

Is there a much better option?  Why don’t we just believe the woman’s testimony?  Let’s think this one through a little more.

In Genesis 1:29 we know that God spoke to both Adam and Eve about what they had permission to eat.  The Hebrew has God speaking to “them” in verse 28 and God used the plural word “you” in verse 29.  See the Hebrew grammar here.  If God did not give Adam the charge or obligation to instruct Eve on what she had permission to eat, why would we think that God would withhold his own personal witness to Eve about what she was forbidden to eat?  We already know from Genesis 1:29 that the prohibition is incorporated into the permission to eat.  See more about this topic here.

We have no direct witness in scripture saying “And God said to Eve…” but we know for sure that the woman knew about the prohibition because she defended God when the serpent charged God with withholding his best from them. At that time the woman said they were forbidden to eat from one particular tree in the middle of the garden.  There were two trees in the middle of the garden but only one tree had fruit that was forbidden for them to touch.

If God cared enough about the woman to give her personal instructions about testing the fruit to know what she could and couldn’t eat, then why would we assume that it was Adam who told the woman about the prohibition?  Where do we have any words of instruction quoted in scripture that Adam gave to his wife?  We have not one word of instruction from Adam to his wife.  However we do have personal instruction from God to the woman.

Here we are once again at the bottom line.  It always boils down to what we are going to do with the woman’s testimony.  She said “God said…”  Who caused us to mistrust her testimony?  Is there anything in scripture that would tell us that she lied or that she was mistaken?  Or have we fallen prey to our world’s tradition that automatically distrusts a woman’s testimony and calls it into question?

For those of you who are yet unconvinced, let me ask you to explain to me how the woman came to be mistaken?  There must be a logical and scriptural option for the mistake of the woman or else we have nothing else but mere speculation and innuendo against the woman.

If we are going to be  God’s people of faith, we must walk in the direction of allowing women to testify about God.  God has already said that in the last days he will fill both male and female with his Spirit.

Joel 2:28  “It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions.
Joel 2:29  “Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.

If God has filled his female “sons” with his Holy Spirit just as he has filled his male “sons”, then let us also release women with our blessing to testify about what “God said…” and let us as the body of Christ believe their testimony.

The silence of Adam was it a sin?

The silence of Adam was it a sin?

In our continuing discussion about the fall of man, we have seen that there are no witnesses and no charge of sin against Eve for adding to God’s word.  Therefore we must conclude without any charge of sin, that the woman did not add to God’s word.  Can the same be said about Adam regarding his charge to guard the garden?  Is there also no witness to Adam’s “sin”? Let’s have a look at the scriptural account.

In Genesis 2:15 we find out why God put Adam in the garden in the first place.  Remember that man was made outside the garden and then brought into the newly planted Garden of Eden to cultivate it and guard it.  The Hebrew word “shamar” means to guard or to protect.  Obviously if a garden needs to be guarded and God set forth a watchman over the garden, there was a need for protection.  Let’s move on to God’s interaction with Adam to see what we can learn from God’s words.

Genesis 3:9  Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?”

In the Hebrew it clearly shows that the LORD God is calling out to the singular man not to both Adam and Eve.  Here we can see God calling out to the watchman.  What is God’s appointed watchman doing?  The watchman is hiding.  Will this watchman be called to account?

Genesis 3:17  Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

God says two things to Adam.  He says “Because you have listened….”  “and have eaten”.  There are two things that Adam is being called to account for.  The first thing is that Adam listened to his wife’s voice.  When did Adam listen to his wife’s voice?  The only recorded mention of Eve’s speaking is when she was speaking to the serpent.

The watchman is required to guard from the enemy and to protect the innocent.  God also made Ezekiel a watchman to Israel.

Ezekiel 3:17  “Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me.

A watchman is required to warn.  When one warns about sin, this provides protection to both the innocent and the sinner.  In my first article about the unfaithful watchman I showed how a watchman was to warn the wicked about their sin.  Yet there is another job of the watchman and that is to protect the innocent from falling into sin.

Ezekiel 3:20  “Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.
Ezekiel 3:21  “However, if you have warned the righteous man that the righteous should not sin and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; and you have delivered yourself.”

The righteous person is to be warned so that they do not fall into sin.  However we find that Adam did not confront the serpent about his sin and he did not warn the woman about the trap that was being set before her.  He was silent.  Now think about this.  If a city is vulnerable to attack and they set a watchman to sound the warning so that they can defend themselves when the enemy arrives, what is a watchman to be charged with who is silent when he sees the enemy approach?  That watchman is to be charged with treason.

Treason is the betrayal of a trust or confidence, a breach of faith; treachery.  This is exactly what God said about Adam’s actions.  In Hosea 6:7 God says that Adam acted treacherously.

It is an act of treason to say nothing and let the plunderer in to plunder and take captive.  Adam listened to the voice of his wife as she was taken captive.  He committed treason as he did not give out God’s words and he did not warn of danger.

God said “Because you listened….”  There is no other sin that comes from listening alone other than treason.  Treason is the sin of saying nothing when you have been appointed as a watchman who is required to sound the warning.

Ezekiel 33:1  And the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
Ezekiel 33:2  “Son of man, speak to the sons of your people and say to them, ‘If I bring a sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one man from among them and make him their watchman,
Ezekiel 33:3  and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows on the trumpet and warns the people,
Ezekiel 33:4  then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head.
Ezekiel 33:5  ‘He heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life.
Ezekiel33:6  ‘But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.’
Ezekiel 33:7  “Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me.

God, the righteous judge, has charged Adam with treason.  A watchman who is silent when the enemy comes in like a lion has committed treason and he has allowed the innocent to be taken captive.  God said “because you listened…”  The charge is clear that listening without action is an act of treason. Treason is one of the reasons why sin entered the world through Adam and why the earth was cursed on his behalf and not on behalf of the woman.

God judges all of his watchmen the same.  There is one standard because God is a God who is not a respecter of persons.  Was God required to judge Adam as a God-appointed watchman?  Absolutely!

The silence of Adam, was it a sin? Absolutely and God justly judged Adam’s silent treason.

The case against Eve

The case against Eve

In this continuing look at the creation and fall of man, today we come to the conversation between the woman and the serpent.

The first thing that we notice about the question that the serpent gives to the woman is that it is an attack on God as the source of supply for both Adam and his wife.  The serpent asks:

“Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

What the serpent is saying to the woman is that God has not given them permission to eat at all.  Is it just one tree that he says they are not to eat from?  No. The serpent says that God hasn’t given them permission to eat from any tree.  At this point the woman doesn’t quote from God, but she gives her conclusion.  Remember in Genesis 1:29 God said:

Genesis 1:29  Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

Notice that in Genesis 1:29 God didn’t say to Adam and his wife that they could freely eat.  He said they were given permission to eat from every single tree that passes the test.  The test is that it must have fruit that yields seed.  That is pretty understandable isn’t it?  The woman understood it and she applied it.  So when the serpent questioned her saying that God hadn’t given her permission to eat, she states that she does have permission to eat.  She knows she has permission to eat because she has applied the test that God gave her and because she did what God asked of her, she ended up with the conclusion that she has permission to eat from the fruit of the trees in the garden.

At this point the woman now quotes God.  She says:

Genesis 3:3  but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'”

There are several options regarding why the woman said what she did, but I will only be discussing two diametrically opposed options that leave the woman either faultless or guilty of a crime against God.

The first option that I will look at very carefully is the very common argument from hierarchists that the woman added to God’s words.  The claim is that the words “or touch it” was not recorded in scripture anywhere else saying “God said” therefore we must believe that the woman’s testimony is not true.  She is presumed to have added words and illegally attributed them to God.

Now let’s think this one through.  Does God make adding to his words a prohibition? Absolutely, yes he does.  It is given as a prohibition three times from Deuteronomy and Proverbs and then specifically later on it is given about the words in the book of Revelation:

Deuteronomy 12:32  “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.

Deuteronomy 4:2  “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30:6  Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.

In Proverbs we see that the result of breaking God’s prohibition is a reproof from God and God will prove the person is a liar.  Thus those who add to God’s words are liars and will be disciplined by God himself.

This is an extremely serious sin and not one to be taken lightly.  Is the woman guilty of adding to God’s words?  One thing we know for sure.  We cannot find someone guilty of sin without two or three witnesses:

Deuteronomy 19:15  “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.

We can see from God’s standard that the woman cannot be found guilty of any sin unless there is evidence of two or three witnesses.  It is through two or three witnesses that we will find the matter confirmed or without these witnesses the matter is unconfirmed and the accused person goes free.

Is it a serious matter to charge someone to be guilty who is not proven guilty by the required witnesses?

Deuteronomy 19:16  “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing,
Deuteronomy 19:17  then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days.
Deuteronomy 19:18  “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely,
Deuteronomy 19:19  then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Here we can see it is an evil thing to accuse someone of a sin without the matter being established with two or three witnesses.  We cannot just accuse someone of sin without a solid foundation of evidence.

Since this is a serious matter, let’s take God’s method of judging the matter and apply it to the case against Eve.

Okay, let’s list two witnesses since that would be the minimum witnesses that are required for a finding of guilt against the woman.

Who is the first witness?  Who charge the woman with adding to God’s word?

The first person to interact with the woman was the serpent.  Did the serpent charge the woman with adding to God’s words?  No he didn’t.  Isn’t this odd?  Satan himself speaking through the serpent didn’t even charge the woman.  Let’s move on to the next witness.

Did Adam charge the woman with adding to God’s words?  No he didn’t.  When Adam faced God he did not say “The woman who you gave to be with me is more guilty than I am because she added to your words.”  No Adam was silent about the woman’s guilt.  No witness here either.

Well what about God Himself?  Surely God himself would follow his standard and reprove her of adding to his words and thus prove her to be a liar, right?  (Proverbs 30:6)  Did God reprove Eve?  Did God say that the woman was guilty of adding to his word?  No one, not even God Himself charged the woman with adding to His own words.  Do you know what this means?  It means without a single witness against a person charging them with sin, we are forbidden by God’s word to attribute guilt to them.

The question is, what will you do?  Will you take the position of accuser?  Will you be a malicious witness falsely accusing the woman of sin when there are no witnesses charging her with sin?  I think those of us who love God’s word and hold to the scripture’s authority would not want to be the one to cast the first stone.  There are no witnesses that can be found in scripture that charge the woman with adding to God’s words.

My view is that if there are no witnesses to charge the woman with adding to God’s word (and there are no witnesses) then I accept her word that she told the truth.  Indeed God did speak to both Adam and his wife and even though these words are not recorded elsewhere in scripture, we can accept the record of God’s words by the testimony of the woman.

Now where do you stand?

%d bloggers like this: