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: …
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. …
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. …
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.
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. …
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 Jrheadship is defined as a right that the man possesses to lead women in a God-glorifying direction. Ortlund writes: …
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: …
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 authorityover 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.
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. …
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.
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. …
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.)
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.)
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. …
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] …
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”.
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.
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.
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: …
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? …
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?
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.
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?