The paradox of Genesis 2 is also seen in the fact that the woman was made from the man (her equality) and for the man (her inequality). 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\u2019t. Why? Because, presumably, that would have obscured the very nature of manhood and womanhood that He intended to make clear.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
So why is it that complementarians like Raymond Ortlund charge Eve with taking a forbidden role in leadership? I submit that it is because their theology is far more focused on man than it is on God. \u00a0By creating a male-right that needs defending, Ortlund creates prohibitions that do not exist in the text and violated rights<\/em> that were never given by God in the first place.<\/p>\nLet\u2019s look at what Eve did during the time of temptation to see what she has been charged with by complementarians and to compare the charges against God\u2019s word. \u00a0There are 9 charges against Eve that have been identified by complementarians and we will test these by the Biblical record.<\/p>\n
1. Eve is charged with having an illegal conversation with the serpent<\/strong><\/p>\nThe serpent asked the woman a question and by answering his question Eve is said to have usurped Adam\u2019s authority. Ortlund writes:<\/p>\n
This may explain why Satan addressed Eve, rather than Adam, to begin with. Her calling was to help Adam as second-in-command<\/em><\/strong> in world rulership. If the roles had been reversed, if Eve had been created first and then Adam as her helper, the Serpent would doubtless have approached Adam. So Eve was not morally weaker than Adam. But Satan struck at Adam\u2019s headship.<\/em> His words had the effect of inviting Eve to assume primary responsibility at the moment of temptation<\/strong><\/em>: (pg 108 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe charge is that the one who is second-in-command<\/em> is not allowed to answer a challenge about truth.<\/p>\n2. Eve is charged with ignoring her<\/strong> second-in-command position<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\nNotice above the subtle adding to God\u2019s words to set up a charge against Eve? Godnevergives the woman a secondary rule<\/em>. She is not second-in-command. She has the same rule as Adam does. In fact the only time that rule is mentioned is with the same word that applies to both.<\/p>\nGenesis 1:26 (NASB)\u00a0Then God said, \u201cLet Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule<\/em><\/strong> over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nGenesis 1:28 (NASB)\u00a0God blessed them; and God said to them<\/em><\/strong>, \u201cBe fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over<\/em><\/strong> the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n
The Hebrew word for rule means:<\/div>\n
\ndominate, direct, lead, control, subdue, i.e., manage or govern an entity, people or government with considerable or forceful authority (Ge 1:26, 28;<\/div>\n
Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
The Hebrew word for subdue means:<\/p>\n
\n(2) to subject, to subdue to oneself, e.g. of. beasts, with regard to man, Genesis 1:28;<\/p>\n
Gesenius\u2019 Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (383\u2013384).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The fact that Eve is given rule shows that she too had permission to lead as an authority set up by God.\u00a0So if Eve was given the rule over all the animals, then<\/strong> she had permission to speak to the serpent<\/strong><\/em> by the very nature of her rule. It is impossible for her to be usurping Adam\u2019s authority by talking to the serpent since she was given the exact same authority over the animals by God Himself.<\/p>\n3. Eve is charged with illegally speaking for Adam and taking his God-given position thus usurping his authority<\/strong><\/p>\nGenesis 3:1 (NASB)\u00a0Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman<\/em>, \u201cIndeed, has God said, \u2018You shall not eat from any tree of the garden\u2019?\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nNotice that the serpent did not question Adam but he spoke directly to Eve. When Eve spoke to the serpent she did not insert herself into the conversation by answering a question given to the man.
She answered a question directed to herself.<\/em><\/strong> Since she was a ruler over the serpent she had the right to speak to him directly without asking permission from Adam. Remember that it was God who made her the ruler over the animals<\/em><\/strong>. Adam did not give her that rule so she was not responsible to ask his permission to work out her rule. \u00a0She was under the direct authority of God. God had not given over her a superior ruler to report to. She was not a secondary ruler but she had the exact same rule as was given to Adam<\/em><\/strong>. The idea was she was second-in-command is a work of fiction and has no Biblical support at all.<\/div>\n4. Eve is charged with speaking for God which is a responsibility given only to the man<\/strong><\/p>\nOrtlund says that the serpent struck directly at Adam\u2019s headship by coming to the woman. Where is the Biblical support for this? There is none! While God made Adam a watchman of the garden before Eve was created, a responsibility for protecting the garden from evil, God never assigned Adam as a watchman for God Himself. There is no evidence that God assigned the man the sole responsibility to speak for Him or to defend Him. Surely both the rulers of the earth had the responsibility to defend God<\/em> in their very own territory. How did Adam do in defending God? Silence is usually not a good defense is it? How did Eve do? Did Eve represent God fairly when she spoke up to defend Him? The fact that she started out defending Him is commendable.<\/p>\nThe serpent asked Eve if God had failed to give them permission to eat from the fruit of the trees in the garden. The Hebrew shows that the serpent used the plural you<\/em><\/strong> showing that the question was about God\u2019s permission for both of them<\/em><\/strong>. Eve answered that they did have permission to eat from the trees of the garden except for the fruit from one tree. This is what God had said in Genesis 1 where He gave them both permission to eat from all of the trees that had seed bearing fruit. Eve had every right to speak and answer and show that God had given her permission to eat. There was no prohibition ever given to her that would make it a sin for her to defend God.<\/p>\n5. Eve is charged with speaking to the serpent initiating a sex role reversal<\/strong><\/p>\nOrtlund states that Eve was disobedient in that she took the male role in speaking to the serpent and the human race fell on the sex role \u00a0reversal.<\/p>\n
Isn\u2019t it striking that we fell upon an occasion of sex role reversal<\/em>? Are we to repeat this confusion forever? Are we to institutionalize it in evangelicalism in the name of the God who condemned it in the beginning<\/em>? (pg 107 Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood<\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nInstead of saying that the human race fell by disobedience to God\u2019s command, the fall is reinterpreted by Ortlund as an occasion of sex role reversal. Not only does he reinterpret the fall but he boldly states that God condemned this sex role reversal<\/strong><\/em>. Where is his Biblical proof of this statement? He gives no words from God that would make Eve\u2019s talking to the serpent a sex role reversal but it appears that we are to simply accept his condemnation of Eve without a quote from God. This is another occasion of pure fiction that has been added to God\u2019s word.<\/p>\nThe next part of the \u201crole reversal\u201d is charged to Adam for listening to his wife.<\/p>\n
The third interesting point is the very fact that God addresses Adam with this introductory statement, \u201cBecause you have listened. . . .\u201d God does not address Eve in this way, but God does issue a formal indictment to Adam before his sentencing. Why? Because Adam was the head, the finally responsible member of the partnership. (pg 110 Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood<\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nAccording to complementarians this \u201clistening to his wife\u201d is about Adam allowing his wife to persuade and\/or deceive him, but the Scripture doesn\u2019t say this. Nowhere is it recorded in the text that Eve had to persuade Adam to take the fruit or is it said that Adam was deceived by either the serpent or his wife. Instead the charge against Adam is about his listening to his wife in the only recorded account of her words during the temptation \u2013 while she was being deceived by the serpent. Adam\u2019s duty was to protect the garden from evil and and to speak out the truth when he knew that what was being said to his wife was a lie. When Adam let the serpent deceive his wife when he knew that what the serpent was saying was a lie, and he stayed by his wife silently<\/em><\/strong> letting her be drawn into disobedience through deception, Adams action was considered an act of treason just as God said in Hosea 6:7.<\/p>\n6. Eve is charged with sinning against the man by giving the fruit to him and thus initiating his fall<\/strong><\/p>\nGiving the fruit to Adam is considered as Eve exercising headship thus subordinating him to her authority.<\/p>\n
But Satan struck at Adam\u2019s headship. His words had the effect of inviting Eve to assume primary responsibility at the moment of temptation: \u201cYou decide, Eve. You lead the way. Wouldn\u2019t you rather be exercising headship?\u201d Just as Satan himself fell through this very kind of reasoning, so he used it to great effect with Eve. Presumably, she really believed she could manage the partnership to both Adam\u2019s and her own advantage, if she would only assert herself. (pg 108 Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood<\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhen Eve offered the fruit to Adam, she was in a position of one who truly believed that the fruit was good for them. In her mind she was offering him the good portion. But offering him the fruit is not the same thing as making him take it and eat it. Eve took no authority over Adam to make him obey her. She just gave to him. \u00a0The Hebrew word translated as gave<\/em><\/strong> means to give, offer or present. Eve merely offered him what she considered was her best. It is not a term of force but of a voluntary offering.<\/p>\nBut in Ortlund\u2019s reality, offering the fruit to the man was taking leadership over him. But what Ortlund may not realize is that by taking this stand, he is aligning himself with Adam\u2019s excuse of blaming his wife for his own sinful action. This is not an issue of disallowed leadership but of blame.<\/p>\n
Genesis 3:12 (NASB)\u00a0The man said, \u201cThe woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree<\/em>, and I ate.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nNotice that even Adam\u2019s lame excuse doesn\u2019t say that the woman God gave him took authority over him or that she took leadership over him. He hides his sin by blaming her for merely giving the fruit to him. It is an invalid excuse and yet complementarians are now using this to say that Eve sinned by usurping Adam\u2019s authority when she gave him the fruit. Offering the fruit has become equal with challenging the man\u2019s rule, but that meaning is foreign to the text.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s think this one through. If giving food to the man is challenging his rule, then no woman would be safe by offering a man anything. If the mere act of offering something is equivalent to lording it over him according to the accusation against Eve, then any woman is subject to this charge. Should women stay away from offering food, directions or advice to a man for fear that they will also be charged with usurping his authority? This argument is so bad that it didn\u2019t fool God. Why do we let it fool us today?<\/p>\n
7. \u00a0Eve is charged with being a sinner before she ate the fruit <\/strong><\/p>\nIn an attempt to further charge the woman with sin, Ortlund states that she misquotes God and added to His words:<\/p>\n
Eve also enlarges God\u2019s prohibition with her own addition, \u201cyou may not touch it.\u201d In her mind, the limitation is growing in significance. (pg 106 Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood<\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWe have dealt this issue before on this blog showing that it isn\u2019t possible for Eve to have added to God\u2019s Word, but I will point out here that God\u2019s speaking to Himself in Genesis 3 shows that the concern over Adam is that Adam would reach out<\/em><\/strong> and eat<\/em><\/strong>, the very two things that Eve said were forbidden by God. The word for touch<\/em><\/strong> that Eve quoted God as forbidding them to do with the fruit, has the meaning of to reach for. And look carefully at what God said after the fall:<\/p>\nGenesis 3:22 (NASB)\u00a0Then the LORD God said, \u201cBehold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out<\/em><\/strong> his hand, and<\/em><\/strong> take<\/em><\/strong> also from the tree of life, and eat<\/em><\/strong>, and live forever\u201d\u2014<\/p><\/blockquote>\nNotice that there are two things that God doesn\u2019t want the man to do? \u00a0He is not to reach out for and take AND eat. How interesting that God affirms Eve\u2019s words as the word \u201ctake\u201d in the Hebrew means:<\/div>\n
\n
\ngrasp,
take hold of<\/em><\/strong>, i.e., grasp an object with the hand<\/div>\nDictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
So while Ortlund disbelieves Eve\u2019s testimony that God said that they could not reach for and take the fruit and they could not eat the fruit, God Himself affirms that she did not lie about what He said. He says that these two things are what is not allowed. No reaching forth to take and no eating. What a sad thing it is when complementarians charge Eve with sin even though God does not say that she added to His Word and the proof that she did not is right there in God\u2019s own words!<\/p>\n
8. Eve is charged with claiming that God said she would die if she ate of the forbidden fruit when God never brought death upon her for eating the fruit<\/strong><\/p>\nOrtlund asserts is that Eve did not die because she ate the fruit. Rather she had the sentence of death on her only through the man.<\/p>\n
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.<\/em><\/strong> (pg 110 Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood<\/em>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\nThis claim actually calls God\u2019s words into question just as the serpent said \u201cHas God said?\u2026you will surely not die\u201d<\/p>\n
Did or did not God say that if they would eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they would die? This is the testimony of the woman that God said this to them and God affirmed his prohibition to both of them. \u00a0He did not ignore the woman so that she died because of Adam. \u00a0God came to her individually by asking her what she had done. Yet Ortlund is now claiming that she didn\u2019t have to die from eating of that fruit. He claims that in Genesis 3:19 God pronounced the death sentence on Adam alone.<\/p>\n
Genesis 3:19 (NASB)\u00a0By the sweat of your face\u00a0You will eat bread,\u00a0Till you return to the ground,\u00a0Because from it you were taken;\u00a0For you are dust,\u00a0And to dust you shall return.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
But what Ortlund is saying is not true. The death sentence
was given before they ate<\/em><\/strong> to be in effect the very day they ate.<\/div>\nGenesis 2:17 (NASB)\u00a0\u2026for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nWhen God spoke to Adam later, He did not pronounce the death sentence. Instead God told Adam what his life would be like until the day he died:<\/p>\n
Genesis 3:19 (NASB)\u00a0By the sweat of your face\u00a0You will eat bread,\u00a0Till you return to the ground,\u00a0Because from it you were taken;\u00a0For you are dust,\u00a0And to dust you shall return.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In verse 19, God did not pronounce the death sentence to Adam as it had already been pronounced by God \u201cif\u201d they ate the fruit. It was given\u00a0before the fall happened. The pronouncement of death was that dying they would die. \u00a0and the Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon shows that this is dying to become mortal:<\/p>\n
\n1. die: a) natural death \u2026b) \u2026death penalty\u2026become mortal<\/p>\n
A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. (188).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Adam did not become mortal when God confronted him<\/em><\/strong>. He became mortal at the time that he ate the forbidden fruit. This is what God had warned him about beforehand.<\/p>\nSo when Ortlund denies God\u2019s word and claims that Eve died because of Adam\u2019s sin, he directly contradicts God. \u00a0It is impossible for Eve to have died because of Adam\u2019s sin. She was not like us who were \u201cin Adam\u201d when Adam sinned. His sin could not cause her to die<\/em><\/strong> and such teaching is erroneous and dangerous. This teaching that the husband can cause a wife to die by his sin<\/strong><\/em> instead of by her own sin is contradicted by the Scripture. When Ananias and Sapphira had conspired together to lie to the Holy Spirit, Sapphira was not put to death because of her husband\u2019s sin. Instead she was given the opportunity to come clean and tell the truth. Her husband was already dead when she was confronted and he died because he continue to lie. But his wife did not automatically die when her husband died. His sin did not kill her. It was her own continued lie that caused her death. (See Acts 5:1-10)<\/p>\nIt is a harmful teaching that women have no choice but to be held accountable under their husband\u2019s leadership. The fact is that God looks on us as individuals and each one is responsible for himself or herself. God didn\u2019t call Adam to account for Eve. God called each one of them to account for their own sin.<\/div>\n
9. \u00a0Eve is charged with giving ungodly pressure to Adam to eat the forbidden fruit and also for having an insubordinate desire for him<\/strong><\/p>\nThe last thing that Ortlund asserts is that the man is the one who acted in a loving way and the woman was the one who was punished by God for what she did to the man<\/em><\/strong>. \u00a0According to Ortlund the man is the honorable one after God confronted them:<\/p>\nInstead of turning away from the bar of God\u2019s justice in bitterness and despair, Adam turns to his wife and says, \u201cI believe God\u2019s promise. He has not cast us adrift completely\u2026I believe God, and I honor you. (pg 110 RBM&W)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And then according to Ortlund, the woman is the dishonorable one who usurped Adam\u2019s headship and her misery afterward is a result of her sin against the man. Her sin includes an ungodly pressure <\/em><\/strong>for him to eat the fruit and her desire for him is said to be an insubordinate desire<\/em><\/strong> that would cause him to take out his trump card to \u201cput her in her place\u201d.<\/p>\n\nGod gives the woman up<\/em> to a desire to have her way with her husband. Because she usurped his headship in the temptation, God hands her over<\/em> to the misery of competition with her rightful head. This is justice, a measure-for-measure response to her sin. <\/strong><\/em><\/p>\nThe ambiguous element in the equation is the interpretation of the words translated in the NIV, \u201cand he will rule over you.\u201d We could draw one of two conclusions. First, God may be saying, \u201cYou will have a desire, Eve. You will want to control your husband. But he must not allow you to have your way with him. He must rule over you<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\nIf this is the sense, then God is requiring the man to act as the head God made him to be, rather than knuckle under to ungodly pressure from his wife<\/em><\/strong>. Accordingly, 3:16b should be rendered: \u201cYour desire will be for your husband, but he must rule over you.\u201d{47} In this case, we would take rule as the exercise of godly headship. This interpretation matches the reasoning in 4:7 more nearly, but another view is possible.<\/p>\nSecond, God may be saying, \u201cYou will have a desire, Eve. You will want to control your husband. But he will not allow you to have your way with him. He will rule over you.\u201d If this is the true sense, then, in giving the woman up to her
insubordinate desire<\/strong><\/em>, God is penalizing her<\/em><\/strong> with domination by her husband<\/strong><\/em>. Accordingly, 3:16b should be rendered: \u201cYour desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.\u201d{48} The word \u201crule\u201d would now be construed as the exercise of ungodly domination. As the woman competes with the man, the man, for his part, always holds the trump card of male domination to \u201cput her in her place.\u201d\u00a0(pg 109 Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood<\/em>)<\/span><\/em><\/strong>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nConclusion:<\/strong><\/p>\nIt is so sad to see that the original fall has been rewritten to make the man to be the one who was<\/strong> sinned against<\/strong><\/em> by the woman<\/strong> and the woman is the one to blame<\/strong> so that even her desire for him has become a personal attack against the man.<\/p>\nIt is time to call us back to the inspired account instead of the fanciful rewritten editions that make the woman the fall guy. \u00a0The challenge by complementarians that God did not say what Eve testified He said and the challenge that Eve is guilty of sin against the man who was somehow made her ruler in the original creation (yet without a Scriptural account of this special rule set up by God) have greatly hurt the church of the Lord Jesus. Satan wants us to believe a lie. Will you reject that lie and get back to what God actually did say? May the Lord Jesus help us all to test all things and to hold fast to what is good and truthful.<\/p>\n<\/body>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In our continued topic of common objections to women in ministry, we come to the claim that Eve usurped Adam\u2019s authority when she spoke to the serpent. To deal with this claim, we will be looking at both the claim that Eve rebelled against Adam in the garden and the claim that God gave Adam a responsibility to lead that He clearly denied to Eve. In chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr…<\/p>\n
Read More Read More<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[10,11,13,14,31,40,42,51,52,55,67],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1906","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-adam-and-headship","category-answering-complementarian-arguments","category-authority-and-leadership","category-authority-and-women","category-egalitarian-vs-complementarian","category-headshipsubmission","category-in-the-beginning-genesis","category-old-testament-scriptures","category-opposing-viewpoints","category-prejudice-in-the-church","category-the-fall-of-man"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"yoast_head":"\nCommon objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority - Women in Ministry<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority - Women in Ministry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In our continued topic of common objections to women in ministry, we come to the claim that Eve usurped Adam\u2019s authority when she spoke to the serpent. To deal with this claim, we will be looking at both the claim that Eve rebelled against Adam in the garden and the claim that God gave Adam a responsibility to lead that He clearly denied to Eve. In chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr... Read More Read More\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Women in Ministry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-22T06:48:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-20T03:25:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Cheryl Schatz\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Cheryl Schatz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/\",\"name\":\"Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority - Women in Ministry\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-22T06:48:11+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-20T03:25:07+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/47288f9588a290ab288bfdfb9c4eef29\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/\",\"name\":\"Women in Ministry\",\"description\":\"This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled \u201cWomen in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?\u201d This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women\u2019s ministry.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/47288f9588a290ab288bfdfb9c4eef29\",\"name\":\"Cheryl Schatz\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/efbf589c4a731d44dfcc39bcc33b901d?s=96&d=retro&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/efbf589c4a731d44dfcc39bcc33b901d?s=96&d=retro&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Cheryl Schatz\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/author\/b692nplyxipl362mwh\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority - Women in Ministry","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority - Women in Ministry","og_description":"In our continued topic of common objections to women in ministry, we come to the claim that Eve usurped Adam\u2019s authority when she spoke to the serpent. To deal with this claim, we will be looking at both the claim that Eve rebelled against Adam in the garden and the claim that God gave Adam a responsibility to lead that He clearly denied to Eve. In chapter 3 of Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood written by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr... Read More Read More","og_url":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/","og_site_name":"Women in Ministry","article_published_time":"2010-03-22T06:48:11+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-20T03:25:07+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Cheryl Schatz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Cheryl Schatz","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/","url":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/","name":"Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority - Women in Ministry","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg","datePublished":"2010-03-22T06:48:11+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-20T03:25:07+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/47288f9588a290ab288bfdfb9c4eef29"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/2010\/03\/21\/eve-usurped-adam-authority\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Common objections to women in ministry: Eve usurped Adam's authority"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#website","url":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/","name":"Women in Ministry","description":"This blog is for dialogue on the issue of women in ministry and the freedom for women to teach the bible in a public setting. It is also for questions and answers on our DVD entitled \u201cWomen in Ministry: Silenced or Set Free?\u201d This 4 DVD set answers the hard passages of scripture that seem to restrict women\u2019s ministry.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/47288f9588a290ab288bfdfb9c4eef29","name":"Cheryl Schatz","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/efbf589c4a731d44dfcc39bcc33b901d?s=96&d=retro&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/efbf589c4a731d44dfcc39bcc33b901d?s=96&d=retro&r=g","caption":"Cheryl Schatz"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/mmoutreach.org\/wim"],"url":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/author\/b692nplyxipl362mwh\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6wpJ8-uK","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1906"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1906"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1906\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4060,"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1906\/revisions\/4060"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1906"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1906"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/strivetoenter.com\/wim\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1906"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"man's](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.mmoutreach.org\/wim\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/03\/mans-authority-2.jpg?resize=350%2C239\")
<\/p>\n