Why Adam wasn't deceived? Part Two
This post is a continuation of the comments from part one with discussion between Michael and Cheryl.
Can only men judge right from wrong in the church?
I read with interest Wayne Grudem’s claim that 1 Cor. 14:34 means that women are to “keep silent”regarding weighing of the oral prophecies in the assembly. While I respect Mr. Grudem as a brother in Christ, I am wondering how he can separate women from the responsibility of judging when scripture says that we all have the responsibility to judge. Judging is not a male activity, but an activity of the mature Christian. Paul had already told the Corinthian church that the saints will judge the world. 1 Corinthians 6:2 says:
1 Cor. 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?
Paul said that the saints will not only judge the world, but we will judge angels! 1 Corinthians 6:3 says:
1 Cor. 6:3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?
This is not a male matter of judging, but an activity of the saints. If women are also going to judge the world and the angels, shouldn’t they be allowed to judge matters in the church relating to truth and error and the bible? Nowhere in scripture does it say that women are not allowed to judge. In fact God himself set Deborah up as a judge in the Old Testament. Where is there any law in scripture that forbids women from judging truth from error in the congregation? There is none!
In 1 Cor. 14:29 it does not say that there is a responsibility for males alone to judge. Instead it is the congregation who must learn to be mature and judge between truth and error. “Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment.”
I respectfully say that Mr. Grudem may be fulfilling 1 Cor. 12:21 “And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” Is there really no need of women to be mature and judge between truth and error in the body of Christ? Can men do this *alone* and they don’t need women? I don’t think we have a right to tell women that they cannot participate in the mature responsibility of the entire body to judge prophesy. Women must be allowed to be mature and to judge right from wrong. If Paul really was claiming that women were not allowed to judge prophesy, then he was contradicting himself when he pushed the saints on to maturity by telling them that judgment is a Christian thing that we will all be required to do. Indeed, judging in a mature and honorable way is not as Mr. Grudem claims only a male activity – it is an activity that is to be practiced by all mature members of the body of Christ – even women!
Why was Adam not deceived?
1 Timothy 2:13, 14 show that the first creation of Adam is connected to the fact that Adam was not deceived. Why was Adam not deceived? If the Hebrew text shows that God created the animals in two creative acts – one before Adam was created and one after Adam was created (but before Eve was created) – then we can understand that Adam had knowledge about the huge difference between God and creation that kept him safe from deception. See my summary of the 1 Timothy 2:11-15 passage explained in 20 short points posted here to understand the complete context of what we will be talking about in this post.
The discussion has taken on a question of whether animals could have been created after Adam if the old earth view is considered or if only a young earth model could fit the context. I will be posting several comments that came in under the 1 Timothy 2 passage and placing them under this post so that they can be answered here. I will then take each question and comment on them as time permits in my schedule.
Does God have one unique law? Part Three
In this part three of “Does God have one unique law?” we will be discussing the last set of circumstances that set apart the “law” that complementarians say God made that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. It is our desire to point out that all of these unique circumstances that set apart this “law” as something completely unique from all of God’s other laws should cause us to see “red flags” regarding making 1 Timothy 2:12 a universal law.
If we look at the entire context of 1 Timothy chapters 1 and 2 we are able to clearly see a context of deception and false teachers that Timothy was left behind in Ephesus to deal with, therefore we should be very cautious in using one verse taken out of its context to condemn all godly Christian women who obey God by using their gift of teaching to include men.
In the last two articles where we have been discussing this unique “law”, we have discovered that God has certain characteristics concerning his laws that are common to all of God’s laws.
1. All of God’s laws are able to be traced back to the Old Testament to find their roots. Without the ability to trace a law back to the Old Testament, the Bereans would have not been able to test all things by God’s Word. Since the early Christians only had the Old Testament available to them and since Paul commended the Bereans for testing Paul’s teachings and commandments by the Old Testament, if Paul had created a brand new law that wasn’t able to be tested, then there was a unique “law” that had the unique ability to be the only “law” that couldn’t be tested by God’s Word at the time of the early church.
2. All of God’s laws are repeated in scripture so that none of them is ever stated only once. Paul said that repetition is for our safety and we agree that the repetition of God’s laws make his commands clear and understandable and all of God’s laws are verifiable by a second witness.
3. None of God’s laws calls good works as evil. If 1 Timothy 2:12 is a “law” that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, then it is the only “law” of God that calls a good work (teaching the bible) as an evil thing.
Today we will add the last part concerning the uniqueness of this “law”.
4. All of God’s laws require God Himself commanding mankind. The unique “law” of 1 Timothy 2:12 has a man commanding.
While we believe that Paul was an Apostle called of God to speak to the church and give out God’s inspired words, there were times that Paul gave his own commands for a specific situation in the church. In 1 Corinthians 7:8 Paul says:
1 Cor. 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
Yet God’s word says that it is not good for man to be alone. Why did Paul say it was good? In 1 Corinthians 7:26, Paul says:
1 Cor. 7:26 I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
Paul said that it was good for one to remain unmarried because the church was going through much persecution and taking on additional family responsibilities would have been hard during that distressful time for believers.
It is also clear that Paul’s own commands are not universal but for a specific situation. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:27:
1 Cor. 7:27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife.
We ask is it a universal command that one is not allowed to be married if they are in an unmarried position? No, of course not. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:28:
1 Cor. 7:28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.
Paul’s command to not seek a wife was a command by him for a specific time and a specific situation. It is very clear that not all of Paul’s commands are universal laws. Here is another example. In 1 Corinthians 7:20 Paul commands:
1 Cor. 7:20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
Is this God’s universal law? No it isn’t possible that this is a universal law. If a man is a slave when he is saved, is he forbidden to become a free man? No, not at all for Paul also said in verse 21:
1 Cor. 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
What about if a man is uncircumcised when he is saved? Is it a universal law that he is forbidden to be circumcised? Paul commands in 1 Corinthians 7:18:
1 Cor. 7:18 Was any man called when he was already circumcised? He is not to become uncircumcised. Has anyone been called in uncircumcision? He is not to be circumcised.
Is this a universal law that Paul has commanded? No it isn’t. If it was, then Paul broke the universal law of God because Paul had Timothy circumcised. In Acts 16:3 it says about Timothy:
Acts 16:3 Paul wanted this man to go with him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in those parts, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.
If it was a universal law that one was to remain as they were when they were saved and an uncircumcised man was not allowed to become circumcised, then Paul broke that universal law by circumcising Timothy. However from the context we can see why Timothy was circumcised. Paul wanted to minister to the Jewish people and when he picked Timothy to work with him, he knew that Timothy would be rejected because he was uncircumcised. Paul circumcised Timothy so that the gospel would not be hindered by the rejection of Timothy by the Jews. Paul’s command was a command by him for a specific time but it was not a universal law by God.
Now let’s look at another example to see how Paul differentiates his commands from the commands from God. In 1 Corinthians 7:10, 11, Paul commands:
1 Cor. 7:10, 11 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
Do you see a difference here? Paul is saying that this command is from “the Lord”.
Now let us look again at what has been said by complementarians to be a universal “law” in 1 Timothy 2:12:
1 Tim. 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
Do you see here that Paul is saying “I do not allow”? Is this a universal prohibition or it is a command by Paul for a specific situation in Ephesus? If it is a universal prohibition, then it is the ONLY prohibition that is framed with the words of a man instead of the command from God. Now isn’t that odd? Why would God break all of his consistent ways of giving universal laws with this one “unique law”? Why would Paul not verify in any other verse that this command was God’s command? Why did Paul not say that “God does not allow” or “I received this from the Lord, and He does not allow”? Paul has already told us that some things he says are his own commands. Let’s look to see how the three verses below are similar:
1 Cor. 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
1 Cor. 7:20 Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
1 Tim. 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
All three are commands by Paul but they are not universal commands by God. All three are for specific situations and specific times.
Now for those who still believe that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a universal law that forbids all godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men, I challenge you to find another universal law by God that is framed in the words of a man saying “I do not allow”. You won’t find it. Why? Because all of God’s laws without exception have the last point in common – all of them are given by God and they are clear that they come from God Himself!
I challenge you today to go back to the list of 4 things from the beginning of this post that shows what all of God’s commands have in common and to think seriously about 1 Timothy 2:12. Does God have a unique “law” where only one “law” of His does not have to follow His set pattern? That is not safe and it is not for our benefit.
If God has a unique “law” that does not follow his set pattern of all other laws, then this is one law that is not safe. Rather my beloved, let us take Paul’s words and understand that Paul in context, was commanding a prohibition for a specific situation regarding deception and a deceived teacher. The grammar once again (I do not allow) is the key for us to properly interpret this passage.
Let me end this series of posts with the words of Paul in Philippians 3:1
Phil. 3:1 Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.
All of God’s laws are repeated as a safeguard for the church. There is no other command in any part of the bible that even hints at a prohibition against godly Christian women forbidden from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. This is not a universal law then because it fails the test of all of God’s universal laws.
Click here to read Part Two or here to read Part One of “Does God have one unique law?”
Does God have one unique law? Part Two
To read part one of Does God have one unique law, click here.
Complementarians have stated that God has a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. This law, they say, is revealed in 1 Timothy 2:12. Since we saw in part one that this law is foreign to the Old Testament, let’s have a look at the New Testament to see if there is a second witness to this law.
Paul stated that repetition is for our safety. Philippians 3:1 says:
Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.
Paul knew the importance of repetition. Every time doctrine is repeated and every time a prohibition is restated, we have a verification of the facts. Cults often take one scripture out of context and twist the meaning. When a fact is repeated, it is less likely that the fact can be disregarded or disputed. Repetition is indeed necessary for our safety.
So since we know that the “law” that forbids godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men is not stated in the Old Testament and would not have been a tutor for the women in the early church, is there a repetition of this “law” in the New Testament anywhere? No there is not. Now isn’t that odd? Every single “law” in the bible is verified by a second witness, except for this one. For more discussion on the necessity of having a second witness click here.
Now let’s look further at this unique “law”. Earlier in the passage 1 Timothy 2:9, 10 Paul says that good works are proper for women claiming godliness:
Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
So what kind of good works are proper for women? Would it be a good work for women to teach correct biblical doctrine? According to complementarians the answer is “yes” and “no”. The answer is “no” if she teaches correct biblical doctrine to men. Now this rendering of 1 Timothy 2:12, makes this “law” a unique one among all of God’s laws. This interpretation forces the teaching of God’s word to be considered an evil thing depending on who the bible is taught to or who does the teaching. Nowhere else in scripture is the godly work of teaching scripture represented as an evil thing depending on who does the work.
Let’s see it in another way –
- The Bible says thou shalt not commit adultery, therefore adultery is evil.
- The Bible says thou shalt not lie, therefore lying is evil.
- 1 Timothy 2:12 says women shalt not teach the bible to men, therefore teaching the bible to men is evil.
There we have it – handling of God’s word becomes evil in a woman’s hands unless she discriminates against men and kicks them out of her bible study. Is this really God’s way, or have we misunderstood a difficult bible passage? It is our contention that this reading of scripture that allows the teaching of God’s word to be considered an evil thing is not a proper way to interpret 1Timothy 2:12. For a reasonable and logical way to read 1 Timothy 2:12 that does not attribute the teaching of God’s word to be an evil act, click here to read What does 1 Timothy 2:11 – 15 mean?
In this series we have examined 3 things that refute the complementarian argument that 1 Timothy 2:12 is a law that forbids godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. In summary let’s list these three things:
1. There is no corresponding law in the Old Testament that forbids women from teaching the bible to men therefore if the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12 is a general law for all women, then it is a law that has no Old Testament backing.
2. There is no second witness that forbids women from teaching the bible to men. All of God’s prohibitions have a second witness. Since this “law” against women teaching the bible does not have a second witness, it is immediately a “red flag” that stands out to alert us to the fact that we have misunderstood the passage making it a general prohibition instead of a specific prohibition regarding a problem situation in the church in Ephesus.
3. There is no other law that takes a godly work of teaching God’s word and makes it an evil thing merely by the one doing the work. If the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:15 makes the teaching of God’s word an evil thing, then this is a red flag that this passage has been misunderstood. Instead of making the teaching of God’s word an evil thing, the passage should be understood as prohibiting the teaching of false doctrine and the silencing of a false teacher.
To go to Part Three click here.
What does 1 Timothy 2:11-15 mean?
I was challenged to present my view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15 on another blog and I thought it would be good to summarize my view on my own blog. Here is the teaching from “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” our DVD series on the hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, presenting the 1 Timothy 2 passage in a nutshell:
- In context, Paul is dealing with false deceived teachers who are teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3, 7)
- Paul did not leave Timothy behind in Ephesus to stop the false teachers AND to stop all women who are teaching correct biblical doctrine – he only left Timothy behind to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3)
- Paul says that he too had been deceived and he received mercy because of his fighting against the church was because he was ignorant of the truth and he had been deceived (1 Tim 1:13, 16)
- Paul differentiates between those who were teaching false doctrines because they were ignorant and deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 7) and those who were deliberate deceivers (1 Tim. 1:19, 20)
- Paul names the deceivers (1 Tim. 1:20) but he does not name the ones who are deceived (1 Tim. 1:3, 6)
- Paul gives instructions to Timothy regarding how the men and women who claim godliness should conduct themselves in the church while they are in the midst of the false teachers (1 Tim. 2:1-10)
- All Christians should be praying for the lost even those who are lost in their midst – those who are embroiled in false doctrine (1 Tim. 2:1-4)
- The Christian men in the congregation are not to handle the false teachers with argumentation that might come out even in their prayers (1 Tim. 2:8)
- The women in the congregation who lay claim to godliness (1 Tim. 2:10) need to handle this false teacher situation with prayer as well (1 Tim. 2:9 “likewise” links back to prayer) and continue to produce good works (1 Tim. 2:10) and not expect that it is their appearance with elaborate dressing that will show forth the godly example, but their godly works (1 Tim. 2:8-10)
- Paul then abruptly changes from the godly men and women (plural) to the singular form of woman and man and deals with a problem of false teaching and a false teacher.
- Before Paul gives the prohibition, he gives the solution to one of the problems in the church. Paul instructs that “a woman” is to be given the opportunity to learn. This identifies the problem that she is not one of the deceivers, but one of the deceived. Paul never educates the deceivers – he names them, exposes them and shuns them. His solution to deception is education in sound doctrine and he never ever identifies the deceived.
- Paul tells Timothy that he is not allowing “a woman” to teach or authenteo “a man”. It is out of context to even consider that Paul is here stopping godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine. In context the prohibition can only be the stopping of false doctrine and stopping a false teacher. (1 Tim. 2:12)
- We know this is false teaching that is being stopped because Timothy’s mandate to stop the teachers was only for false teachers. Also in the example given later of why the teaching is to be stopped, Paul ties the prohibition into the example of the first deceived woman (1 Tim. 2:14)
- Whenever gune and aner are mentioned together in scripture in any type of relationship, they are always translated as husband and wife. Verse 12 should be translated as a single wife teaching/influencing her husband.
- Paul has several times not identified people by calling them “a man” yet the context clearly identifies the “a man” as a specific person (2 Cor. 12:2, 5; 1 Cor. 5:1) 1 Timothy 2: 11, 12 follows that example as two people are called “a woman” and “a man” without naming them. They are not named because the wife is one of the deceived and Paul never identifies the deceived ones by name.
- Paul identifies the reason why the first man was not deceived and why the woman was. He refers us back to Genesis to discover the reason by stating that the man was created first and was not deceived and the woman was created second was deceived (1 Tim. 2:13, 14 and Gen. 2:8, 19) See Genesis 2:8, 19 in the Apostle’s Bible which is the modern English version of the Greek Septuagint where it is quite clear the education Adam had before Eve was created.
- The grammar from 1 Timothy 2:15 requires the identification of a single female to refer back to “a woman” from verse 12. The “she” from verse 15 cannot be Eve because the tense is future and Eve is dead.
- The only “she” in this entire passage that verse 15 can refer back to is “a woman” from verse 12. “She” and “they” are given instructions regarding her salvation and it is future tense.
- 1 Tim. 2:15 gives the answer as to whether the deceived woman can receive salvation even though she has been deceived by false doctrine. She (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman) will be saved through the Messiah born of the woman (the childbearing which is a noun and not a verb), if they (refer back to verse 12 the deceived Ephesian woman and her husband) continue on in their faith in God, love for the Savior, holiness, and self-control to stay away from false doctrine. This is how one deceived woman will be saved (and is a pattern for the salvation of all deceived teachers).
- Summary: Paul was not making a universal prohibition that stopped godly women from teaching sound doctrine to men. He was stopping one of the false teachers in the assembly from taking her Christian husband down the proverbial garden path towards the forbidden fruit.
For a full media production of this passage along with the other hard passages of scripture on the women’s issue, see our DVD called “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” available on Amazon.com or see a fuller version of 1 Timothy 1:11-15 by clicking here.
Does this exegesis make sense?
Does God have one unique law? Part One
If complementarians are right in their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, then God must have one completely unique law. This “law” forbidding women from teaching the bible to men is not like any other law in the bible.
All of God’s laws have several things in common. Every law is able to be traced back to its origin in the Old Testament.
All prohibitions that are God’s law written in the New Testament are traceable back to the Old Testament law.
But it is an odd thing about the law about women not teaching men-
It cannot be traced back to the Old Testament. There is no connection there at all! Now isn’t that odd? The 1 Timothy 2 “prohibition” about stopping women from teaching the bible to men is a unique law, the only”law” that cannot be traced back to the Old Testament!
Now because this “law” is untraceable back to the Old Testament, it cannot be tested. When Paul was teaching the Bereans, he commended them for testing everything that he taught them. What did they test his teachings by? In Acts 17:11 it says:
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
So where would the Bereans have tested out this new law from scripture? There is no scripture at all in the Old Testament that confirms that women are not to teach the bible to men!
What other options do we have to interpret 1 Timothy 2:12? We can interpret it in context as a prohibition against a false teacher teaching false teaching, (Paul had already told Timothy he left him in Ephesus to stop the false teachers from teaching false doctrines – 1 Timothy 1:3). If we used that interpretation, then we can find plenty of verses to confirm this prohibition from the Old Testament.
This interpretation fits perfectly with the Old Testament law.
In part two of “Does God have one unique law?” we will discuss another way that complementarians have made 1 Timothy 2:12 into a unique law that is not able to be tested by scripture. Click here to go to part two.
Could the Messiah have been a woman?
Since God is neither male nor female, some have suggested that the Messiah could have been born a female. I would respectfully like to differ with that view. In this post I want to show from scripture why the Messiah had to be a male.
The scriptures definitively say that sin came through one man.
Romans 5:12 NASB: “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned”
Paul carries the thought further by saying:
Romans 5:19 “For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.”
Although Adam and Eve both sinned, the willful disobedience of the man was what brought sin into the world.
1Timothy 2:14: “And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.”
The woman sinned and ate the fruit because she was deceived. She sincerely believed the lie of the serpent and ate the fruit fully believing that she would become like God. Adam on the other hand was not deceived. He did not believe that he could become like God. He did not believe that he would not die. Yet even though he was not deceived, even though he knew he couldn’t become like God, and he knew he would die for his disobedience, he willingly took of the fruit and in full disobedience with his eyes wide open to the consequences of what God had said – he ate.
Although Adam and Eve both sinned and both died because of their sin, only the man is charged with outright rebellion. Rejecting the word of God with deliberate disobedience is a very serious matter. Saul was another man who rebelled against God’s word. Samuel spoke a judgment against Saul when he said:
1 Samuel 15:23 “For rebellion is as the sin of divination, And insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, He has also rejected you from being king.”
I would like to diagram the effects of what happened when Adam sinned. It would be helpful to get the full idea of what I am talking about by reading my previous post “Adam as Head of the family”.
Adam brought sin into the human family and his bloodline was tainted.
Yet when God confronted Adam and Eve, he did not leave them without hope because of their sin. God promised a kinsman redeemer, one who would come through the seed of the woman.
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
Now you will notice in this verse that the one who will bruise the serpent on the head is a “He”. The Hebrew shows that the one who is to come is a male. Why is it prophesied that the Messiah would be a male? It is because it was the man who brought sin into the world. Adam is a type of the one to come.
Romans 5:14 “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.”
The Messiah was not just said to be human, he was also called the second Adam.
1 Corinthians 15:45 So also it is written, “The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
The last Adam, Jesus Christ, was the life giver. It is through him that we receive back what Adam lost. Eve did not lose it for us, Adam did. Mankind did not need a second Eve because sin does not come through her bloodline.
It was through the first male that sin entered the world and the result of that inherited sin is death.
It is through the second male – the second Adam, that mankind is offered eternal life.
Now some might think that the fact that the Messiah was male is somehow important regarding his Godhood. It isn’t. God is neither male nor female. Scripture only speaks of the importance of the Messiah’s being male in regards to his taking the place of the first Adam who plunged mankind into sin. God turned Satan’s deception on its heels. Through the very one whom Satan deceived into sinning, God bypassed the sin of the first Adam and brought the second Adam into our world. It is by putting faith in this last Adam that we will find forgiveness and a restored relationship with God.
Adam as head of the family
Adam as Head of the Family
It is common for hierarchists to say that Adam was Eve’s head not because he was her source, but because he had authority over her. While the teaching that Adam was Eve’s ruler before the fall of man is unsubstantiated, the fact that Adam was the source of Eve is foundational to the doctrine of the kinsman redeemer.
Let’s see if we can draw out the important connection regarding Adam’s headship and the new head of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ. Adam was the first human creation and from his body, Eve was created.
The fact that Eve was created from Adam’s body and that he was the source of her flesh-and-bone-body is highly important because of what happened next. Although Eve was deceived and she sinned because of her deception, Adam sinned willfully without being deceived. Adam sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing. Adam was charged with bringing sin into the world. The following diagram shows how Adam’s blood line was tainted with sin.
The Redeemer from the woman
God, however, prophesied that the Redeemer, the Messiah, would come from the woman. It is vital that the seed of the woman alone would produce the Messiah because of the inherited sin nature that comes through the man. The diagram below shows that the Messiah is produced from a virgin woman.
What women really want
In Genesis chapter 3 God speaks to Eve about her future. Unfortunately God’s words have been interpreted by male expositors in a way that makes God out to be a false prophet. In Genesis 3:16 in the NASB, God said “In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband”
After the fall, God speaks about the future. In the quote above, God says “you will”. This is a prophetic utterance about the future and about the desire that Eve will have for her husband. What is this desire? In the Hebrew the word desire means a stretching out for – a longing for. The Complete WordStudy Dictionary describes this as the strong feelings of desire one had for another, but it wasnt always a healthy one. So is the “desire” of Genesis 3:16 a healthy desire or not? The word translated as “desire” is only found three times in the Old Testament.
In Song of Solomon 7:10 it says “I am my beloved’s, And his desire is for me.” This desire is a very healthy desire of a husband toward his wife. This desire is between a man and a woman.
In Genesis 4:7 it says “And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” This desire is a figurative desire of sin wanting to control a person.
So which kind of desire is God prophesying about in Genesis 3:16? Is it like the figurative desire of sin to control and to destroy? Or is it like the longing of one person for another? Almost every commentary you read, the male commentator says that God gave a judgment on the woman so that she will desire to rule over the man. But is this true? Can scripture be properly interpreted that way? First of all the fact that the woman will desire her husband is not God’s judgment against her. It is a prophecy that would be shortly fulfilled and the desire for the man is the natural longing of the woman in spite of the pain that she experiences from having his children and in spite of the domination that the man has over her. She will long for him in spite of all the reasons for her to want to stay away from him.
In a recent bible study class the instructor brought up these verses and said that it was God’s judgment that women would desire to rule their husbands. When we broke up into groups for discussion, the first thing that the women said was “I have no desire to rule or control the man.” Every one of the women in our group said the same thing.
If we take the interpretation that the male interpreters have put onto this passage, then it puts God into dire straits because he has predicted something that on the whole simply is not true. Perhaps the male expositors should have taken the time to ask women what their desires are and then they would have known for sure the proper way to interpret this verse. So what do women really want?
Women want men to love them emotionally. Women long for their men to hold them and speak tenderly to them and to be treated as if they were the only woman on this planet. Yes women want sex too, but sex is an outworking of the emotional bond between man and woman. Women are not like men. Women do not use emotions to get sex. Women throughout the centuries have naturally used sex to get emotional love. So what is it that women want? Women want and desire emotional love. Women’s innate desire is not to rule men.
I have spoken to many women about this verse and most think the concept about them desiring to rule men is abhorrent. They can’t even conceive of it. Think about the women in all the third world countries. Do they desire to rule men? No. They dream about and long for freedom from being dominated and controlled. Women just want to be free to be themselves, they aren’t looking to rule the men, and above all they want to be loved.
So why have men chosen to believe that God said that the woman would desire to rule her husband? It is only because they are men who don’t know the internal nature of women.
Now think about it this way- if God’s intention was to punish women by making them want to rule their husbands, then why is it world-wide that women are not trying to rule their husbands? Why is it that the womanâ’s natural state is one of being easily controlled? It is because the woman’s natural tendency is to please the man and to want to do whatever will get emotional love from him. God’s words about her desire are not a curse on the woman, they are a prophetic statement concerning the innate longing that the woman will have.
And within a very short time, God’s prophetic words will come to life. Think about this – God kicks Adam out of the garden of Eden. He does not kick Eve out. Why is that? Because God knows that Adam in his rebellious state will desire to eat from the tree of life. Eve was deceived into eating the forbidden fruit – she did not eat because she was acting in a rebellious way. So God kicks out the rebellious one.
Genesis 3:23 and 24: therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 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.
God kicks out the rebellious Adam and he is forced out of the garden. So if God doesn’t kick Eve out, then why did she leave? It is so simple. God has already told us. He prophesied what was going to happen. Eve left because she desired her husband.
Husband as the Priest of the home?
With the push towards defining biblical manhood and womanhood, often men are pressured into a leadership role where they feel overwhelmed by their responsibilities. Probably none more stressful than the title given to them as “Priest of the home”. But is this position biblical?
Nowhere in scripture is there to be a designated “priest of the hom”. In Judges chapters 17 & 18 Micah, an idol worshipper, consecrated his son as a priest in his home (Judges 17:5) and he also persuaded a Levite to be his personal priest (Judges 17:7-13). This “priest of the home” was involved with idol worship (Judges 18:4, 14-20) and he was not set up as a “priest in the home” by God.
A priest is one who represents the people to God and offers sacrifices to God. Our High Priest is Jesus himself and he is both a mediator between mankind and God and the one who offered the ultimate blood sacrifice for our sins. Since we have Jesus as our High Priest, is there any need for a single priest in the home representing the family to God? Let’s see what scripture says. 1 Peter 2:5, 9 says that we are all to be priests to God in order to offer up spiritual sacrifices.
1 Peter 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 2:9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
By removing the wife from a joint priesthood with her husband and making only the husband responsible for seeking God’s will in all family decisions, those who espouse the unbiblical position of the man as the sole priest in the home, relegate the wife’s participation to a secondary and subordinate position in the home. This dismantles the woman’s equality as joint-heir with her husband and threatens to limit her spiritual growth.
The ultimate goal of every believer is to be conformed to the image of Christ and to grow into a mature “son” of God. All believers are called “sons” of God because all believers are fellow heirs with Christ. Because we are fellow heirs with Christ, all believers are expected to grow to maturity by learning how to make spiritual decisions that conform to biblical principles. Paul said that in the next life we (men and women in the body of Christ) will judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3) so it is so important that we all learn how to make mature spiritual decisions in this life.
By believing in the faulty doctrine that men are the sole priest in the home, many women have been taught that their husband is spiritually responsible for them. They think that if they love God and follow their husband’s spiritual lead that they will have no responsibility in the decisions made by their husbands. However in two of the best known examples of a husband not making wise spiritual decisions, Adam and Ananias (Acts 5:1), the wife was judged for her actions equally with the husband. There is no example of a husband called to account for his wife’s actions or a wife freed from spiritual responsibility because her husband made the original decision as in the case of Ananias. God did not ask Adam what Eve had done even though Adam was there with Eve during her temptation (Genesis 3:6) and Sapphira was held equally responsible for her acceptance of her husband’s plan to deceive the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:9).
As joint-heirs of Christ and partners in the holy, royal priesthood, husband and wife have equal responsibility to seek God’s will for the family and equal responsibility to work together to preform God’s will in the home.
What is true headship?
With all of the talk on submission of a wife, we should at least grant that submission is not related to suppression of God’s gifts. In other words if a woman is gifted to teach, her submission to her husband and her desire to honor him should not be a means to stop her from using her God-given gifts. My husband’s position as my head is “worked-out” by his sacrificing for me. He gives up his life for me in order to provide me every opportunity to use my gifts and in turn I honor him by serving him and stepping outside my comfort zone in service to the body of Christ because of his encouragement. In my shyness in the past I have stepped back from using all of my gifts because of fear of man, but my husband has continually pushed me and prodded me to grow and mature. He has used his headship wisely for my good and my growth just as a physical head feeds the body.
True headship nourishes and encourages and lifts up the woman to be everything that she can be in Christ. True submission allows the head to nourish and sacrifice for her benefit. When my husband “works out” his headship in a godly way, it will always lift me up and will never suppress or hold back my God-given gifts.
Godly women need to repent?
My heart goes out to Pastors who are so engrained in tradition that they can easily justify sending godly women to hell. This past weekend I spoke with a Pastor from a denomination that does not believe that women are allowed to teach the bible to men. I asked him several questions regarding his view and his answers were very eye-opening to me.
1. I asked him if there was a law that forbid godly women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men and he said yes. (Yet every law of God comes from God alone and is never put into the words of a man saying “I do not allow”. God’s laws are clear, understandable, enforceable and they always have a second or third witness because God’s law are always repeated in scripture.)
2. I asked him if disobeying that “law” is sinning against God and he answered yes.
3. I asked him if I teach the bible to men and then do not repent of this sin before I die will I go to hell. He said yes.
Think about this – I will go to hell for teaching correct biblical doctrine! This has nothing to do immorality or a hatred of God. This has everything to do with operating in my God-given gifts. Yet this tradition says that I will go to hell for refusing to kick men out of my bible studies. Otherwise I must act in a prejudicial way towards my dear brothers in Christ so that God doesn’t send me to hell. How Satan must laugh at the church when our traditions have become a cause of separating brothers and sisters in Christ. Women have so much to give to the body of Christ and it is our desire to be allowed to share this knowledge with our brothers.
Audio talk now available online
On October 20, 2006 I gave a talk on the women’s issue at a convention of ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses. The talk was roughly based on questions that I had received from a Pastor who had watched my DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” He had asked me some questions that were not covered by the hard passages on women from WIM. In my talk I answer the challenges against women teaching the bible to men that the Watchtower makes as well as the challenges from some Christian pastors. You can download the audio file at Jehovah’s Women on Trial mp3 file or play a streaming version at Jehovah’s Women on Trial mp3 streaming version.
Can complementarians agree to disagree?
I sent a copy of our DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” to the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood in February of 2006 and this summer I finally received a response. They have chosen at this point not to try to refute the video and have said that they will just agree to disagree. I think it is wonderful when Christians can have differing viewpoints and after working through their issues, at least agree to disagree. However in this case I am questioning whether that is really possible. I certainly can agree to disagree with them and still call them my brothers in Christ. However their position is that women who teach the bible to men are in sin. Can they agree to disagree when my brothers in Christ see me as living in unrepentant sin? I don’t think they have that option.
When you see your brother in sin, scripture tells us what to do if we see our brother or sister in sin:
Galatians 6:1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted.
So if one sees a Christian brother or sister in sin, they should try to restore that one to fellowship, right? Does this seem consistent with “let’s just agree to disagree?” What verse would one point to that agrees that sin is merely a matter of agreeing to disagree?
What about this one – scripture says that the one who is born of God will not continue living a lifestyle of sin.
1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.
1 John 3:6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
So if a Christian brother accuses a sister in Christ of sinning against God by teaching the Bible to men, how is it consistent with scripture to “agree to disagree” and see the “sinning” sister as part of the fellowship of the body of Christ? How can the one practicing sin as a lifestyle be held in fellowship?
I certainly want to be gracious about this and to respect CBMW’s position, but it seems inconceivable to me that an organization of Christian men dedicated to spreading the complementarian position and who sincerely believe that women are in sin for teaching the bible to men can ignore my request for dialogue. I have asked them for their comments on my exegesis and if they believe I am wrong then to show me where I am wrong. It’s a no go. They aren’t interested. They just want to “agree to disagree”. Hmm……. Is that scriptural?
Another complementarian Pastor responds
I am preparing a talk on women in ministry partly based on questions and challenges presented to me by a complementarian Pastor from a large denomination which restricts women from teaching the bible to men. Here are excerpts that he gave regarding our DVD teaching series on Women in Ministry:
I want to say from the start that I was very impressed with the quality of your production and the depth of reasoning present in Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free? This is a well thought out treatment of this controversial issue of women in ministry… It would have been easy for you to fall into a derogatory and disrespectful and even an antagonistic tone in this production, but you did not stoop to this level and for that you are to be commended. The tone throughout was one of respectful disagreement and honorable treatment of those who differed from you in your position. That’s grace.,,, I learned some interesting things from your teaching [for example](your handling of 1 Corinthians 14) – This was well done and your reference to Jewish tradition was powerful in making your points. Could Paul’s reference to “the law” in verses 34-35 be referring to a quotation from Jewish tradition? You make a pretty persuasive case that it is… Again I want to commend you on your work. It is well done, rational and reasonable, temperate, well organized, and of high technical quality… I want to say in closing, Cheryl, you and all those who worked on this project have done a magnificent job in presenting your case. I thank you for allowing me to review your work. It stretched me and forced me to dig deep and seriously consider what I believed about this issue.
I appreciate this Pastor’s willingness to be open to have his position on the women’s issue biblically challenged. This Pastor also gave me a list of questions and challenges that he believed needed to be answered regarding issues outside the hard passages of scripture and thus not included in the material in the DVD itself. I have answered his questions point by point and right now we are still dialoguing.
Pastor has his eyes opened regarding faulty traditions
I recently received this email from a Southern Baptist Pastor who watched the DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” this summer:
Yes I did watch the video and thought it was very interesting. You made
some very valid observations…Your DVD was excellent…I must admit that my eyes were opened away from some faulty traditions from viewing your DVD objectively and un biased.
The question is how do we contend without being contentious? Many people, even women are steeped in tradition rather than educated in Scripture. Lord help us all!!!
It is a great question that he asked. …
Isn't the Priesthood in the OT proof that God uses only men?
Q: Isn’t the fact that God only chose men for the Priesthood in the Old Testament proof that God only uses men in leadership? After all the Priesthood is equivalent to the Pastorhood in the church.
A: Although God originally started with only one tribe in Israel for the Priesthood and only the men from that one tribe were eligible, his intention was not for the Priesthood to stay with only one tribe and only the men. In Exodus 19:5-8, God makes a covenant with the nation of Israel. …
Is there a law that forbids women from teaching men?
Q: Isn’t there a law in 1 Timothy 2:11-15 that forbids women from teaching the Bible to men? Why are you disregarding this law?
A: There are many who take 1 Timothy 2:11-15 as a law that forbids women from teaching the bible to men and therefore forbids them from ministering in the church using their God-given gifts. However we need to test this “prohibition” to see if it is a situation in the Ephesian church (a local situation) that Paul is stopping or if it is a law that Paul is establishing for the body of Christ. Up until 1 Timothy 2 was written, there was not even one scripture that says that women are not allowed to teach the Bible to men. Is Paul constructing a new law for the church? Well, let’s test that. …
Wasn't Adam the only one given God's prohibition in the garden?
Q: Does the fact that Adam was the only one given God’s prohibition in the garden prove that he was given a role of authority that the women was not given?
A: This is a common question and comes from a common misconception about the text in Genesis 2. However scripture does not say that Adam alone was given God’s prohibition in the garden and that he had authority over Eve. Let’s have a look at scripture to see what it actually says. In Genesis chapter two, God gives the prohibition to Adam saying “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” …
WIM on line with free introduction clip
“Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” now has a free video clip on line at www.mmoutreach.org/wim.htm.
The clip is the introduction to the series and I hope you enjoy it!
Doesn't 1 Timothy 1:3 list only males as false teachers?
Q: In WIM you say that 1 Timothy 1:3 “charge some that they teach no other doctrine” means people male or female. However isn’t the technical grammar of “some” as singular masculine?
A: This is an excellent question and I am glad that you asked this. Although 1 Timothy 1:3 has a generic meaning of male or female, the fine points of the grammar show that the Greek is singular masculine. However this grammar does not exclude females. …
Isn't it a sin for a woman to teach men?
Q: Doesn’t Paul’s command in 1 Timothy 2:12 for women not to teach men show that to disobey this command is a sin?
A: That’s a great question. In 1 Timothy 2:12 we need to determine what the command is and who the command is to. To determine these two things, we refer you back to the section on 1 Timothy 2:12 in the DVD “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” Now to the question about sin. If one interprets this passage as meaning that all women are not allowed to teach the bible to men, then one would have a very serious dilemma about the charge of sin in this passage. …
Isn't "a woman" from 1 Timothy 2 clear that she is "generic woman"?
Q: You say that “a woman” in 1 Timothy 2:11 & 12 is the same terminology as Paul calling “a man” living in sin in 1 Corinthians 5. Wouldn’t you have to admit that the normal grammatical reading in 1 Corinthians 5 which says that Paul is talking about a particular man, not “all men”, is clearer there than in the passage in 1 Timothy 2 talking about “a woman” not meaning “all women”?
A: Absolutely, yes, I agree. That is why the 1 Corinthian 5 passage is not considered a difficult passage. 1 Timothy 2 has many difficult elements and it has been considered a difficult passage throughout church history. …
Why do you say that animals were created after Adam?
Q: In your section on 1 Timothy 2, you state that Adam saw some of the animals being created, perhaps the mates of the animals already created on day six. However, says that God had formed “all of the beasts” (NIV) or “every beast” (NASB). Wouldn’t you say that it’s a stretch to say that means “some” animals were formed when Genesis says that God formed every beast?
A: As we documented in WIM from Hebrew scholars, Genesis shows a second creation of the animals after Adam was created. …
Would your arguments have strength without 1 Timothy 2:15?
Q: It also seems that 1 Timothy 2:15 is crucial for your interpretation. The word ‘she’ is a definite point in your favor. However, without this verse (being that it’s very difficult historically) do you think you’d have the strength in your argument as you do now?
A: Yes, 1 Timothy 2:15 is a very strong point in our argument. It is very important because Paul draws all his conclusions that he has systematically defended in the previous verses, and ties them all together in this one verse. Many Pastors will be blunt and say that they have no idea why Paul put this verse in the passage. …
Wasn't the garden created before Adam was created?
Q: Doesn’t Genesis 2:8 simply say that God had already planted a garden and then put man into it after he was formed? Don’t the following verses then go on to describe what the garden was composed of, not a sequential account of the garden being formed after the man? If 2:8 says there was a garden that God put man in, but he hadn’t yet created the vegetation for it, how could it be called a garden? It’s not a garden until we see green stuff. But as a summary statement, it is simple to see that the vegetation and animals and garden were all in place, and then God put man in it. Adam didn’t witness it.
A: A garden is a garden not because of the green stuff that you see, but because of what has been planted. We can see that very clearly even today. I can go out into my back yard and prepare the soil and plant a garden. My neighbor won’t come by and tell me that I haven’t planted a garden just because he can’t see any green stuff. The fact that it is called a garden even before the green vegetation is seen.
Now regarding your statement that Genesis 2:8 is a summary statement of what has already happened, that is not possible in the Hebrew construction. …
Is there no distinction between male and female?
Q: Some feminists say that there is no distinction to be made between male and female. Is this what you believe?
A: One of the biggest deceptions that Satan has brought into the women’s issue is that equality = sameness. That is not what we believe or teach. You may have noticed in the last section of WIM that I say that equality does not mean unisex. Women are different than men and that is the way that God planned it. Woman was created to meet a man’s need. Men need women because women are different than men and were made to complement him and to complete him. A man and a woman together in marriage are a union of two equals but not a union of two of the exact same things. …
Recommendations for WIM
Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?” as a whole is a very well produced and presented multi-media teaching series on the legitimacy and freedom of women to be in any ministry that God should call them to. The instructor is knowledgeable, very presentable, and articulate. The series presents serious biblical exegesis and research on a number of texts that are often quoted as evidence that women’s roles and opportunities in ministry are limited. Taken all together I find this series to be very relevant and helpful and therefore cannot be passed off lightly….This series can go a long way to giving women the freedom to pursue ministry as God calls them and to answer the concern and questions of others.
I can recommend MM Outreach ministries and would be privileged to do so.
-Rev. Robert Guthrie, B.Th. M.A. Instructor in Biblical Studies and Church History Vanguard College, Edmonton, Alberta
In a world where many secular societies have seen the equality and value of women in leadership roles, too often religions have been slow to make the same transition. Biblically, Christ “tore down the middle wall of partition” that separated men and women, yet still, many Christian denominations and organizations maintain an error-filled perspective concerning women in ministry. As “Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” clearly exposes the truth of God’s word, each individual who wants balanced instruction in this vital area of teaching will discover that God’s word is not vague nor is it indifferent about the role of women and their God-given ministries.
Those who have felt confused or restrained will find instead great freedom and a sound stance that upholds truth and extends endorsement for all women who choose to serve Christ in leadership and teaching roles.
…(the) series was well-prepared and with good documentation! Well done!
-Pastor Wayne McNeilly/Evangel Pentecostal Assembly, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
The story of creation tells us that both man and woman were made in the image of God. All people are given intrinsic value in the miraculous act of creation, and all people are loved passionately by God, regardless of gender, race, age, education, economics, etc. However, though men and women are equal in value and purpose in God’s eyes, there are passages in the Bible that raise the question of whether or not God limits the roles that are available to women in a local church family. Women in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free examines this question in a thoughtful and persuasive way. Through clear, concise teaching and multimedia, this series provides an excellent presentation of the arguments in favor of a woman’s freedom to serve in all roles of Christian leadership according to God’s leading. Though I disagree with the theological conclusions of this series at several points, I found the series very helpful in understanding the issues involved from a different perspective. Without a doubt, the presentation is offered with tremendous respect, integrity, and grace.
Dr. Scott Heine, Compass Church, Goodyear, Arizona
Women in Ministry is a well-researched, well-presented series on the role of women in the church today. Cheryl Schatz has done her homework in a very thorough and thought-provoking manner. She brings to our attention the pertinent scriptural teaching that helps us see the freedom women are given by the Lord for leadership in the church and the exercise of their God-given spiritual gifts.
The material is presented in an engaging format. From the very beginning the viewer is drawn in with excellent graphics and video clips. Cheryl is a gifted Bible teacher.
This series is a must-see for those who seriously want to know what the Bible teaches on the role of women in the church today.
Rev. Bob Carroll
Church Planting Pastor
The Link Christian Community
Edmonton, Alberta
Scriptures Showing Women in the Ministry are Missing
Q: Why did you not list in WIM all the scriptures that show women properly leading and serving God in both the New Testament and the Old Testament?
A: This DVD set is specifically about the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women from ministering to the entire body of Christ. Although listing all the scriptures that show women’s ability and calling to minister wherever God calls them is important, these scriptures alone do not adequately explain what appears to be a roadblock to women’s ministry – namely the hard passages of scripture. WIM deals with all the hard passages in a way that makes them understandable and allows the scriptures to be read without contradiction.
Introduction
“Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?” (WIM) is a very visual way to learn to understand the hard passages of scripture concerning women in ministry. However I felt that it would also be helpful to have an interactive way to answer questions that have arisen from those who have viewed the DVD teaching series. This blog will give readers the ability to see what questions others have asked concerning WIM and the teaching on the hard passages of scripture.
If you have any comments or questions you may post them for others to see or for me to answer. I do expect that you will be courteous and dialogue in a respectful manner.