I cannot seperate the teaching for married men in this passage from verse 18 which teaches all to submit to one another in the Body. That is what being filled with the Spirit looks like.

The passages you mention are simply a way for the husband to submit to his wife. Culturally, this would have been seen as radical at the time and perhaps his societall position would make it necessary for him to model this first. AFter all, she was considered chattel in that society. Submitting, as it is understood in the Greek, was a step up for the wife. And verse 18 makes it equal for married believers in the Body. There is no way around that unless some, like Grudem, are willing to say vs 18 does not apply to some in the Body which only reads into the text.

Gengwell, come back! Did you see my explanation above?
.

This could not be the case if Adam ‘was’ like that before the fall. What Adam ‘has become’ is new from the fall (and continues i agree).

Sorry, that isn’t true. The serpent lied. Adam and Eve would not “become” like God. They already were like Him in His image.

I see what you are saying about the Satan being a liar, but the best liars or decievers or false teachers are those who tell ‘half truths’. The ones who openly deny true teaching are easy to spot. It’s the ones who sound biblical that you need to watch out for.

That may be true of false teachers but satan is not a “false teacher”. He is the father of lies and he has “no truth in him”. Therefore Jesus did not say that there is “half-truth” in him. There is “no truth” in Him. Nothing. Nada.

I believe that what the Serpent said was a half truth.

This is why you are deceived. You believed half of what the serpent said when it is all a lie.

They did become like God knowing good and evil, but not in the way that Eve expected- a ‘desire’ to become ‘wise’< ,/blockquote>

As I said before Adam already knew the difference between good and evil. He was not deceived. He did not become more like God when he ate the fruit. He became tainted and thus still in the image of God but actually less than God as he now experienced and lived out evil in the way that he dealt treacherously with God.

Mark, you will never come to know the truth until you realize that it is God’s word that is true an satan’s word that is fully a lie.

The irony is that rather than becoming ‘wise’ when they ate, they became ashamed of their nakedness.

Another of satan’s lies, eh?

I think there is more to knowing good and evil than just experiencing it, but i am well aware that this issue has been unresolved for centuries, and people never seem to agre on it.

The problem is that until people understand that there is no truth in satan, many will continue to be deceived.

When I was first studying to witness to Jehovah’s Witnesses I came across a quote from the founder of the Watchtower. He stated that a truth told by satan is just as true as a truth told by God. He said that we need to accept truth wherever we find it. Now to many this sounded correct but it is not right. Jesus said that there is no truth in satan and so we do not accept anything that satan says as truth. Jesus said in John 18:

John 18:37 (NASB) Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

Jesus said that He came to testify to the truth. If He then says that there is no truth in satan how can we believe Jesus and yet say that satan taught a half truth? Truth is a very important matter and this issue is a key. For if we do not have a measure for truth, we will fall for anything. Trust the Lord Jesus who testified about satan. My friend, there is no truth in satan.

Why have you said that Adam ‘was’ and continues to be…?
The text clearly saids that he has ‘become’ (hayah) like one of ‘us’.

Because it is in the perfect tense. Adam “is” like God and he always “was” like God because he was created in the image of God. His becoming like God didn’t just happen that day. It didn’t happen because of the event of eating the fruit. The reference is to the nature of man what he actually “is” now and who he “was” in the past because of the creation of God.

I am glad you attempted to address all of my post, I give you credit for that. It seems that since I last logged on, comments have risen so I won’t have time to answer them all- but a few observations.

I make a habit of trying to address all of the questions. I see that you don’t try to answer all of the questions but miss out on a lot of them. If I can suggest subscribing to the notify feature that is below the comment box if you haven’t done that already. That way you will be sent a copy of the comments to your own email address so that you can keep track of the questions that you have been asked so that even if you cannot answer now, you will consider the questions worthy of answering later.

Why have you over emphasised what I said about Eve being technically made from the earth.

Why do you say I “over emphasized” what you said? Does this mean that you are prepared to changed your view or are you holding onto the same view. If you are keeping the same view, referencing that view and commenting on it is not “overemphasizing”. It is so easy to say that someone is “overemphasizing” your view if you have no answer to their questions.

Technically she is, since Adam was made from the earth, and Eve from him.

Technically the only thing that is ever said about Eve is that she was made from Adam. If God considered this the same thing as being made from the man, then the text would affirm this. The fact is that there is one and one only person who was made from the dirt.

However I am not trying to deny all the texts you raised. You have taken something you thought would help your view and pushed it way beyond my intentions, rather than engaging more fully with the more crucial matters.

This is called muddying the water. I am allowed to deal with any argument that you make and to say that I “pushed it way beyond your intentions” is quite revealing. Who knows your intentions except for you? And it seems to me that you are trying to bypass the fact that you are wrong. Eve was not made from the dirt and the Scriptures verify my position an never state your position about the dirt. I would be better to say that I am write and you misspoke.

Regarding ‘ha’adam’, we know in 3:9 it can only be referring to one man (not Eve) since the very next verse reveals this- only the man responds.

That isn’t correct. God could have called out to the “humans” and Adam answered. After all he is human. The fact then that Adam answered doesn’t mean that God was referring only to him. The proof is not who answered first. God called to only one person by saying (singular) “you”. “The” Adam answered. The woman said nothing at this time. The singular grammar (and the single man answering) is the best proof that God was using “the Adam” for the male.

However in immediately after the banishment, who is introduced, Adam and Eve- both of them. So the context helps determine who is intended, in 3:9 only the man, in 3:22ff both of them.

This is very poor logic. The fact that both left the garden does not prove that both were kicked out. You can only prove that the man and the woman ended up together outside the garden and the reason why she left would have to be read from the clues in the passage. There is no statement by God, Adam or Eve that God kicked her out.

It saddens me that you dismiss even egalitarian scholars, rather than questioning whether it is in fact you who has it wrong.

I am not parochial. I have no problem in rejecting an eglitarian viewpoint just as I have no problem in rejecting a complementarian viewpoint if I can see that it isn’t a view that is supported by the Scriptures.

Perhaps you can list which complementarian viewpoints that you don’t affirm. Or do you hold to all views because you are parochial and always stick to the party line?

It is not good enough to simply blame them and me that it is comp ‘tradition’ that effects out exegesis.

I didn’t simply blame comp tradition. I first of all showed from the text where their view is wrong and then gave my view of why they held to this view. If I had no Biblical reason for dismissing their view, then I should not have said anything. But my view is based on the truth of Scripture and I don’t accept any position, egalitarian or not, which doesn’t fit with the Scriptures.

It might help you to know that I didn’t grow up in a Christian home or Church, so I am not affected by anything. If anything, the opposite is true, I grew up in a feminist culture. So it is not my past ‘traditions’ that are affecting me.

I guess we could say that you switched from one tradition to another. That usually doesn’t come without baggage.

Also regarding your texts to disprove my point that Eve was not a ‘threat’. I asked you to show me a text that talks about ‘sin’ or even ‘sinners’ as not being a ‘threat’ to God, not to quote texts that talk about unintentional sin.

You may have thought that question in your mind but that is not what you asked. You asked me to show where one sin not rebellion. You originally asked:

Cheryl has told me before that Eve was not “a threat”. What a wrong understanding of sin. I would challenge Cheryl to find any scripture which talks about sin in this way. Sin is rebellion against God.

As far as being a “threat” to the tree of life, no other person was in such a position. I can only show you that God said that there were unintentional sins and others sins were willful. I would like to turn this one around and ask you where unintentional sin is called rebellion?

Your conclusion draws that unintentional sin= not threat, which I think is wrong.

No, that is not right. I am saying that the one who sinned unintentionally, when they have their eyes opened to the sin is not a threat to re-offend. Because Eve only sinned because she was conned, and now her eyes are open, she will not take of the tree of life when God tells her not to take now. She was not in rebellion before and she will not disobey God now that she knows the truth.

Sin is an offense to God, whether it be intentional or not, if that were not the case there would be no need for sacrifice, either through Mosaic law or Jesus Himself.

What you have missed out on is that God judges the heart. Those who sin unintentionally do not have the same heart condition as those who sin willfully.

Did Jesus die once for ‘all’, or once for ‘intentional’ sin only?

No one is saying that unintentional sin is not sin. But the heart is different and Jesus died for all of our sins.

Also please engage with relevant biblical texts regarding sin, rather than simply saying they are ‘Calvinistic’. Either the text is saying no-one is righteous or it isn’t.

I do not want you to force Calvinism onto this blog. I will answer your question but I am warning you not to high-jack this blog.

The OT reference that the NT is linked to tells exactly who the text is talking about. And Scripture clearly calls some people as righteous. If no one is righteous (even though all still need a Savior) then the Scripture contradicts itself. Perhaps you care to explain why the Bible says that some are righteous. Jesus said that no one is good. But the Scripture says that some are righteous and they are credited with this righteousness because of their faith in God.

It is either saying no one seeks God or it doesn’t.

It isn’t saying that. The OT reference is to the fool. No fool seeks God. No fool is righteous. No fool fears God. But the fear of God is the beginning of righteousness.

Also why are Noah and Abraham declared ‘righteous’, is it because of their works or because of God’s grace?

They were declared righteous by their faith in God’s word. Thus they were saved by grace through their faith.

Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

You said:

Faith is a gift of God

The “kind” of faith that is a gift is the spiritual gift of faith and just like the gift of miracles and tongues, not everyone has these gifts. But the our faith in God is a response to His revelation that we are required to have.

Paul conclusion therefore in Romans 3 is that by or in themselves, no one is righteous- “all have fallen short”. Notice the text does not say ‘except Eve’!

You are arguing in circles. No one said that Eve didn’t sin. What I am saying is that Eve did not have Adam’s sin nature. She was not in rebellion. You cannot compare apples to monkeys.

I can see now how you come to very wrong conclusions about sin in the fall narrative, since you don’t understand how sin is understood in the rest of the bible.

You my friend do not understand. You are the one who thinks that all sin is alike and that all sin is rebellion. Until you come to a Biblical understanding, you are unlikely to understand the difference between the one who sinned because of deception and the one who sinned in rebellion. I would encourage you to study this issue.

Also it is not good enough for you to say that these sorts of issues are not relevant to the issue of women in ministry. The aspect of sin seems very relevant to your arguments right through the bible, so please don’t ignore them, when you yourself use them in your own arguments.

I will not have you argue Calvinism on my blog. Your arguments are not following women in ministry but arguing a system of theology that is not appropriate for here. After all you give an argument for righteousness when no one was arguing that she did not sin. Since our argument was on the sin nature, your appeal to Calvinism was out of order.

There are more than enough questions for you to answer that have already been asked you regarding women in ministry. If you would like to argue the different views of Calvinism and the Sovereignty of God, I may open a blog on this issue when my DVD comes out but I would ask you to respect me by not making this an issue on this blog. Thanks!

LOL!

Here is an example for Mark that Cheryl and I can disagree. I disagree with this because in Eph 5, the teaching starts earlier with we must be filled with the Spirit and then that we must all submit to one another. I do not see any command that one initiates first. If there is one, I would love to see it.

I don’t think that the Bible commands that one initiates submission first for either gender. I think that is equal. But I do see a responsibility for men to sacrifice first and Jesus loved and sacrificed for his Bride. If we take Jesus and His bride as a symbol of the husband and wife, it does seem to me that she loves Him because He first loved her and sacrificed for her. I don’t see any indication of God going to the church and saying that if we just loved Jesus more, He would treat us better. No, what I see is that He loves unconditionally first. He sacrifices first. We are commanded to submit, to respond to Him and to love Him. But in the best typology of marriage, it is Jesus first and He takes responsibility first. And it is so EASY to love Jesus when he sacrificed first. If this is true, which I believe it to be so, why do counselors seem to focus on women first? They must try harder and harder so that the man can respond.

Maybe I am way off base, but I think that if Christian men would be more like Jesus and focused on the bride, we would all respond. It is really difficult to keep a grudge when the man is loving and sacrificing for us. This is our knight in shining armor. This is Christlikeness in marriage.

But the neat thing is that we get to initiate too whether he does or not. We become Christlike and follow the only one who has never failed us. We women can make a difference if we focus on our part.

This is what I did many years ago and the fruit of it all is a happy and healthy marriage. My husband frequently tells me how wonderful I am and how lucky he is to have me for his wife. And the more he tells me this, the more I want to live up to this high expectation.

Anyway, perhaps we should leave off talking to men about men in marriage if it is offensive to them. This really isn’t what this blog is about. And I sure don’t like to offend a dear brother in Christ.

I think I’m going to take a break. I have written a lot. I can’t say it any other way. If Gen 3:16 is as you describe, then marriage is an irretrievably unbalanced relationship and it’s all men’s fault.

I sense that you are highly offended and I did not mean to cause an offense. I gave my opinions on sacrifice but I did not intend to say that it is all men’s fault. In fact in some situations it isn’t the man’s fault at all. The only time that I see it as the man’s fault alone is in the case of Adam and hopefully we can all agree on that.

You believe that if she had stayed in the garden, that loss of innocence would have actually helped her guard against further sin. Maybe so. But it is far fetched to believe that to be true when she lived for hundreds of years in a quickly deteriorating world of sin under the harsh rule of her tyrant husband.

I for sure would have a problem living without getting overly angry or responding in sin to a husband who took dominion over me, but how would a woman who doesn’t have a sin nature fair? She would handle it better than I for sure. The issue is that nowhere does the Scripture talk about Eve having a sin nature and speculation about how she did that in the sinful world isn’t probably helpful.

I find the notion that she never sinned again in those hundreds of years to be quite unbelievable. Which brings us back to 3:16 - wouldn’t any future sin of Eve’s be as apparent to God as Adam’s sinful “rule” and couldn’t 3:16 therefore be just as predictive of Eve’s sinful behavior as it is of Adam’s.

We would have to assume that Genesis 3:16 is predicting her sin but the language used isn’t telling us that especially without an antagonist character shown in the passage.

And what would Eve’s practicing sin after sin after sin do to her future seed? When would a practice of sin become a sin nature? And if she had a sin nature why do her offspring not become affected by this sin nature? Do you see how the way we view Eve has further implications for her offspring and that one special “seed”?

Still not buying it. Adam, on the other hand, is universally like all husbands who bring only bad things to marriage?

No, I don’t think so. Adam was one who was said to have acted treacherously. If I put beside Adam the godly men that I know, I don’t think that any of them would act like Adam did. I think they would speak out and not let their wives be deceived. Adam was one man who was unique. He alone brought sin into the world and he represents not just husbands but all of us in our sinful ways.

Where is the verse that describes the good things husbands bring to marriage?

Jesus is the best example of a godly husband and those who follow his example are to be commended.

Where is the verse that describes the bad things wives bring to marriage?

Here it is:

Proverbs 25:24 (NASB) It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

I guess you can call this one “the nag”.

This still leaves the situation at “good spouse, bad spouse” in God’s only predictive statement about marriage as it relates to the fall.

So where does this verse actually say that it is about all marriages not just one marriage? Perhaps we have all gone too far with trying to relate all of us to this verse.

Not so! Men tend to enforce control through physical means, making it much more visible to the outside world. But that is no proof that men are more controlling, just that they go about it in a different way than women.

I think that men tend to be more controlling and women tend to be more manipulative.

Do I think that marriage is “an irretrievably unbalanced relationship and it’s all men’s fault”. No. I do believe that the problems in Adam and Eve’s relationship from what was recorded in Genesis was 100% his fault. But that does not follow through from all of our marriages. Every marriage and every situation is different but there are things that sinful humans bring into the marriage because of their gender.

I really like Mark Gungor’s series “Laugh your way to a better marriage”. To me he hits the nail on the head regarding gender issues in marriage.

Here is an example for Mark that Cheryl and I can disagree. I disagree with this because in Eph 5, the teaching starts earlier with we must be filled with the Spirit and then that we must all submit to one another. I do not see any command that one initiates first. If there is one, I would love to see it.

What you are saying is that scripture tells us that men are universally inclined to be tyrants and women are universally inclined to be martyrs.
”

And I was trying to explain it so it would NOT be insulting! I certainly failed at that!

My point is that patriarchy institutionalized and made the sin of ‘ruling’ over a cultural endeavor. It made it not only normal but expected. (And God works through this societal sin for His own purposes. INcluding allowing polygamy which is horrible)

We see instances of partriarchal sin being overridden in the OT but for the most part it was societal in general and a result of the fall. It was not God ordained as comps want us to believe.

Of course there were manipulating women. Look at Sarah insisting Abe have sex with her maid! And he did it! (There is that tango. right?)

But the sin of patriarchal society made her to be worthless without bearing a son. This is just one example of many.

Please do NOT be offended. You are one of the good guys who sees us as equal in being co heirs in EVERYTHING the Lord has for us.