inhistime

If that were so Eve wouldn't have suffered the consequences of her sin. But she did. Adam was responsible for sin entering into the rest of humanity because he sinned deliberately and knowingly. How do you arrive at that conclusion? Eve was deceived and THEN sinned. Adam KNEW and then sinned. Both suffered the consequences of sin. The order and how sin occurred is important as Paul confirms in the NT verses that give you so much difficulty. Ruth Eve didn't bring rebellion into the world because she sinned in a deceived state. She was thoroughly deceived and believed at the time and no longer believed God that they would die if they ate of the fruit. Adam on the other hand sinned in rebellion and his sin is the only sin that was brought into the world. We inherit rebellion from Adam and not Eve because only Adam ate of the fruit with the full knowledge that what God said was the truth. He knew the truth and ate anyway. Eve died for her sin but she didn't bring rebellion because she didn't sin in rebellion. God has shown us through his word that he judges motives and there are degrees of punishment. God judged Adam's sin as more serious than Eve's because of Adam's knowledge. We know for certain that Adam was not deceived because God's word tells us that. We also know that God knew Adam's heart. If God said that Adam's sin brought sin into the world, we just need to believe that God judged his motives and God pronounced the sad judgment that was passed on to all of us. The next thing that we need to know is that God can bring mercy for those who sin ignorantly and in unbelief. Paul claimed that mercy because he sinned ignorantly (1 Timothy 1). Eve received that mercy and through her came the Messiah. We can praise God everyday that he gives us mercy to those who don't deserve it. Jesus died for us and he is the righteous judge who judges the motives and the intent of each heart. All we can do is praise God that he is fair and a just judge.

Ovedya said: Genesis was written as a historic account of creation and early man. Although we can learn much from this account, its primary function is a historical record. What God told Adam and Eve is the historical record. God gave different directions for eating later after the flood. There was only one tree that they weren't allowed to eat the fruit. The tree of life was allowed to them before the fall. With these two facts we can know for sure that there was only one tree that did not have seeds. That was a restriction anyway you see it. If you don't want to admit that then you seem to be denying the facts because you like the complementarian view and you somehow think that if you admit to the prohibition given to both of them, then you can't hold onto your view that God only speaks through men. Those who do not hold a view either way can actually get it quite easily. It is one of the easiest lessons on logic there is.

Neopatriarch said: The problem here is that "a woman" can be generic or specific depending on the context. There is nothing in the grammar that denies that it can be specific. So let's look at the context. If "a woman" isn't a specific woman, then who is the "she" and who are the "they" of verse 15? I am still waiting.....

I don't think you will find a commentary that agrees with you. You are standing but on thin ice in the middle of a river. Who agrees with you? Chapter one is before chapter two, however we know the male wasn't created twice. There are no contradictions. Chapter 2 isn't a re-creation of Adam, it is his creation spoken again in a very detailed version. This is very common in literature. It is called first the big picture and then the details. If you are an avid reader you will find this practice used often in books. Sounds to me like you think you know more than those who make their living off of translating the bible. If you can just dismiss their arguments, then I don't think I can help you. No argument will suffice, it seems, because God agrees with only you.

They are complimentary, but they are not intended to be a chronology of events. This is where many believers err; they take Genesis 1-2 as a chronological recording of history only, and ignore the focus of those two chapters entirely. In Genesis 1 and 2 God is working from the general to the specific. Genesis 1 is the narration of God's creation as a whole: He created light, air, the heavens and the earth, the birds, the fish, trees, animals, and finally humans. The words employed in Genesis 1 are "corporate." They refer to all plants, all animals, all humans, etc. Genesis 2 describes a specific even which takes place in the garden. It describes what God did when he created the first man, where He placed him, and what He told him. There needn't be any attempt to try and "marry" the two chapters together to produce a full picture of the chronological events in creation, because that's not what God intended when He ordered them in our Bible. Attempting to figure out what God said, to whom He said it, and how He said it, is therefore futile, and it entirely misses the point of the first two chapters in Genesis. Said who? The Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics book edited by Robert D. Bergen and produced from a conference of 90 professionals linguists 60 of whom were working translators, members of Wycliffe Bible Translators, completely disagrees with you. The Hebrew grammar is clear that chapter 2 is to be taken sequentially. I have shown the quotes and the grammar in my DVD series "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" The grammar is also backed up by the Apostles Bible which is an English translation of the Septuagint. We can see from that translation how the early Greek translation from before Jesus' day understood the sequential events.

Logic tells me that the event of 2:7 happened before the event of 1:29. So there is no 'rule of logic' which chapter is to be read first because they complement eachother. First in history these events happened before the event of 1:29:

Yes, God's commandment to Adam is in chapter two, but God's command to Adam and Eve regarding what they could eat (which also encompassed what they could not eat) is in chapter 1. God's commandment to eat is certainly in Genesis 1:29. By this we can be sure that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have fruit which had seeds. They were given freedom to eat from every tree except the one tree that didn't have seeds. This is just another way to tell them what they can and can't eat. It is a command and it is valid. Again, arguing from a vacuum. God's commandment of what they could eat is not proof of His commanding what they could not eat. The fact is, in Genesis 2 God specifically commands Adam not to eat of a specific tree. Whether or not it had seeds is also not argued there. Not true. When God tells them they can eat from every tree that has fruit that yields seeds, it is the same as saying that they can eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree that doesn't have fruit that yields seeds. Otherwise you have a contradiction here. Did not God say that they can eat from every tree? There is a prohibition implied here or else we have a contradiction. "There is no implied commandment at all. The verse does not quote God as saying, "Eat only from trees that produces seeds." If I pointed to an auditorium full of chairs and said, "I have set up these chairs for you to sit in," I am not specifically commanding you to avoid sitting in certain types of chairs. Some of the chairs may have blue sashes on them and some may have red sashes on them. My telling you to sit does not include a commandment to not sit in the chairs with the red sashes on them. Where is the verse or biblical teaching that the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have seeds? God said: Gen 1:29 Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; God said that he has given YOU (plural) every tree for food. Every tree is given for food that has fruit yielding seed. Since in chapter two God said that every tree was given to them for food except for one tree, then we can logically deduce that there was only one tree that produced fruit that didn't have fruit with seeds. They can eat from: (chapter two) Every tree but one.... (chapter one) Every tree with fruit that yields seed... Therefore only one tree had fruit that did not yield seeds because only one tree was forbidden to them. It is only simple logic and this is simple enough for anyone to understand unless they come to the passage with preconceived ideas that won't allow them to see it.

Yes, it is present, active, indicative and there is nothing that makes extend into the future past Paul's life. The context of verse 11 & 15 shows the extent of the prohibition. She must learn the truth (verse 11) and verse 15 she must continue in the truth and have self-control to stay away from deception. Once the conditions are removed the prohibition is no longer in operation. I have a friend who is a complementarian and we get along quite nicely. In my DVDs I make it clear that this is not an issue for Christians to divide over and complementarians deserve our love and respect as fellow Christians. I have been in contact with Andreas concerning my objections to his view of 1 Timothy 2:15 (which view he admits that not even CBMW accepts as true a viable option) and he was not able to answer my objections. He told me that my objections are valid and worthy of being asked. Now if his view was solid, then it would stand up to scrutiny. It does not. I noticed you quoted me about my asking you once again for your exegesis of 1 Timothy 1 & 2 but you said nothing about producing it. Are you working on it? Do you have any leg to stand on? I am respectfully waiting. It won't separate you from me as a Christian, but it makes what you say a lot less credible.

Yes, God's commandment to Adam is in chapter two, but God's command to Adam and Eve regarding what they could eat (which also encompassed what they could not eat) is in chapter 1. God's commandment to eat is certainly in Genesis 1:29. By this we can be sure that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have fruit which had seeds. They were given freedom to eat from every tree except the one tree that didn't have seeds. This is just another way to tell them what they can and can't eat. It is a command and it is valid. Again, arguing from a vacuum. God's commandment of what they could eat is not proof of His commanding what they could not eat. The fact is, in Genesis 2 God specifically commands Adam not to eat of a specific tree. Whether or not it had seeds is also not argued there. Not true. When God tells them they can eat from every tree that has fruit that yields seeds, it is the same as saying that they can eat from every tree in the garden except from the tree that doesn't have fruit that yields seeds. Otherwise you have a contradiction here. Did not God say that they can eat from every tree? There is a prohibition implied here or else we have a contradiction.

Yes, God's commandment to Adam is in chapter two, but God's command to Adam and Eve regarding what they could eat (which also encompassed what they could not eat) is in chapter 1. God's commandment to eat is certainly in Genesis 1:29. By this we can be sure that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did not have fruit which had seeds. They were given freedom to eat from every tree except the one tree that didn't have seeds. This is just another way to tell them what they can and can't eat. It is a command and it is valid.

Hmmm.... Where does it say in the Bible that Adam was credited with the fall because he sinned willfully and with knowledge? "But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Rom. 5:14) Notice that it does not say, "After the likeness of Eve's transgression." It does not say that Eve was a type of Him who was to come. Adam is the head of the old creation. The old creation is called "Adamic" because of this. The name "Adam" in the following verse is actually the title given to fallen humanity, the old creation: "For just as in Adam all die..." (1 Cor. 15:22a) Adam is the head of the old creation and so therefore the transgression of his sin is passed on to all who are in the old creation. I disagree. The attribution of sin to Adam was not because he was male, but because he was the head of the old creation. He was the first one created. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and so is the head of the new creation. I don't disagree with this. In Christ is the finish of the old creation and, as the firstborn of the new creation He is the head of the new creation, which is the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ (Even the New Jerusalem). Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me. Adam was the one who dealt treacherously because he sinned when he was not deceived. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Adam brought rebellion into the world because he sinned with rebellion in that he dealt treacherously with God. It was his motive that scripture attributes to his sin, never because he was the first created. Yes, scripture very clearly says that it was only Adam who brought sin into the world and we know from the OT that it was the way he sinned - treacherously against God. Paul says that he himself had sinned ignorantly and in unbelief and he found mercy. 1Ti 1:13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; Eve found mercy because she had fallen into sin because of deception. She did not bring rebellion into the world. Adam did not sin because of deception and his deliberate decision to sin brought rebellion into the world. Hmmm... In Hosea 6:7 "Adam" is used as the corporate term for "man." The word "transgression" in Hebrew is given to mean, "To pass over (or through)...to go beyond." It indicates an action which is in contrast to the keeping of a law or rule. To "rebel" against God is to engage in an act of war against him. Adam's "transgression" was not an act of war. It was an act of weakness to an overwhelming desire to please himself, and even to please his mate. As the head of the old creation, however, this sin was charged against him. Note that in God's punishment of him, He commanded that he should till the ground all the days of his life. This is God's punishment: For man to labor for his food rather than to tend a garden which provided freely for him. Thereore, man's punishment was literally to labor over the fallen world. Hmmmmm... So you are saying that Hosea 6:7 has "man" transgressing like "man"? You are really trying to disregard scripture. Try to find an expert that says that this is not the first man Adam. The truth is that Adam dealt treacherously with God by his deliberate sin. You can say that it was an act of weakness but God doesn't say that. If Adam had a defense about his weakness, surely he would have said to God that he sinned because he was such a weak man. No, scripture does not verify this at all. Adam sinned deliberately and with knowledge of the truth. He brought sin into the world and there is no "Eve" that we can blame his sin for. The blame rests solely on Adam's shoulders since the way he sinned (treacherously against God) was rebellion and it alone brought rebellion into the world. The idea that Adam sinned to please his mate is another myth. Where does the scripture give this as his motive? When God asked him about what he did, does Adam say that he sinned because he wanted to please his mate? No. He blames God for giving him the woman (the woman whom YOU gave me) and he blames the woman for giving him the fruit. He says nothing about a desire to please her. His act is an act of rebellion and is rightfully called treacherous.

Hmmm.... Where does it say in the Bible that Adam was credited with the fall because he sinned willfully and with knowledge? "But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a type of Him who was to come." (Rom. 5:14) Notice that it does not say, "After the likeness of Eve's transgression." It does not say that Eve was a type of Him who was to come. Adam is the head of the old creation. The old creation is called "Adamic" because of this. The name "Adam" in the following verse is actually the title given to fallen humanity, the old creation: "For just as in Adam all die..." (1 Cor. 15:22a) Adam is the head of the old creation and so therefore the transgression of his sin is passed on to all who are in the old creation. I disagree. The attribution of sin to Adam was not because he was male, but because he was the head of the old creation. He was the first one created. Jesus is the firstborn of the new creation and so is the head of the new creation. I don't disagree with this. In Christ is the finish of the old creation and, as the firstborn of the new creation He is the head of the new creation, which is the Body of Christ, and the Bride of Christ (Even the New Jerusalem). Hos 6:7 But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me. Adam was the one who dealt treacherously because he sinned when he was not deceived. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. Adam brought rebellion into the world because he sinned with rebellion in that he dealt treacherously with God. It was his motive that scripture attributes to his sin, never because he was the first created. Yes, scripture very clearly says that it was only Adam who brought sin into the world and we know from the OT that it was the way he sinned - treacherously against God. Paul says that he himself had sinned ignorantly and in unbelief and he found mercy. 1Ti 1:13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief; Eve found mercy because she had fallen into sin because of deception. She did not bring rebellion into the world. Adam did not sin because of deception and his deliberate decision to sin brought rebellion into the world.

Adam did represent Eve after the fall (plus Caine and Abel and sisters). are you familiar with sacrificial offering? Who do you think taught Caine and Abel (who were males) to sacrifice in Gen 4? you do know they sacrificed..right? which, if you got your study cap on, can conclude that since Caine murdered Able they already had a family because they were both sacrificing in behalf of their families. edited to say: can you find in scirpture where God showed Adam how to sacrifice? i was just curious if you knew of this? not that it'll satisfy you but wondered if you knew about this. Adam did not represent Eve regarding her sin. God did not call Adam to account for Eve's sin, he called him to account for his own sin. Regarding the rest of your comments that is an argument from silence. If God had wanted Adam to represent Eve, then the first place he would have called him to represent her was after the fall. If God didn't call Adam to account for Eve's sin but he called Eve to account for her own sin, then your argument doesn't even get off the ground in the first place. No, Adam brought sin into the world because he sinned in rebellion without being deceived. Eve even though she sinned by being deceived was still answerable to God for herself. I'll bet she wished that Adam could have answered for her.

Where does the bible say that Adam was credited with bringing sin into the world because he was the first one created? No, Adam was credited because he sinned willfully and with knowledge. Adam was not deceived so his rebellion brought rebellion into the world. Eve fell into sin, she did not walk into sin with her eyes wide open in rebellion. She was fully deceived and therefore she could not bring the sin of rebellion into the world. When we attribute sin to Adam because he was male and because he was the first one created, then we are attributing favoritism to God. But if we understand as scripture says that Adam's sin was different than Eve's and God judges the motives of one's heart, then we surely can understand why sin came through Adam. Jesus too is the last Adam because just as Adam brought rebellion into the world through his act of rebellion, so Christ brings righteousness through his righteousness. When we were "in" Adam we fell with him. When we are "in" Christ his righteousness is attributed to us on our behalf. Praise God that Christ took my sins and your sins and allowed me to be "in" him. This is the very basis of Christianity.

Where does scripture say that the husband has the burden of sole responsibility and accountability to God? Are you thinking that God has made the husband the "priest" of the home? If you believe this, then where does scripture say this? Don't just say these things - prove them from scripture.

Did you read the essay at the link I posted? I have already said that I will contend for the faith once and for all delivered, but I do not claim a teaching ministry. Perhaps you could read the link and then you could tell me why you disagree with an exegesis that my spirit willingly accepts, and why you wish to impose on me your exegesis which is abhorrent to my spirit and positively excludes children because it is far too complex for them to understand. This is no small matter - we have no unity of spirit and therefore we cannot both be speaking from the one and true Holy Spirit. One of us is being led by the Holy Spirit and one is not, because apparently our positions are diametrically opposed and as such cannot emanate from the same spirit. It may even be that we are speaking at cross-purposes, and that we even agree!!! which is why I beg you to read the link I posted which upholds equality of worth/value but differentiates between male/female roles and therefore allows authority and under authority. Ruth I have not only read the article, but I have read most of what CBMW has produced including their books, magazines, audio tapes and I also have a few of their DVDs. I am wondering if you read what I wrote? I said there is nothing in scripture about a husband taking authority over his wife. CBMW cannot provide a verse or passage that says this and you have not either. I didn't say that a husband is not the head of his wife. The head is not a place of privilege but a place of service to the wife to provide for her needs. As a result the wife is to respect and love her husband and submit to his service. There is nothing easier than submitting when a man is sacrificing for you. It causes me at least to love my husband and respect him and treat him like gold. We are both very happy and my husband would have it no other way. We lived the complementarian marriage style for most of our marriage and I submitted as I was instructed to by those who pushed complementarianism. My husband naturally took his authority over me and pressured me into submission. Neither one of us was happy because that is not a one-flesh union lived out in respect. It is a ruler/slave relationship. Once my husband stopped doing that and started sacrificing for me, it was so easy to submit to his service. Then I started to mature and be able to make decisions for myself without having someone do my thinking for me. I still consult my husband and now we make our decisions together. I submit to him in that if we do not come to a consensus, then we do not go forward with the decision. If one or the other of us is not comfortable we do not force the other to go along. Also we both agree that in areas of our own expertise that other person submits to our expertise. It works well and it works with respect and love. I have given my DVD "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" to CBMW and I have respectfully asked them to correct me if my exegesis is faulty. They have said that they don't wish to do a refutation. Now that is a big deal for me. My exegesis has been described as a "fresh" look at the hard passages of scripture and it has caused many Pastors to have another look at egalitarianism. One Pastor wrote me that it corrected his faulty tradition. Now if I was so wrong, why is it that those who have written extensively on the subject on the other side have no correction for me? It is easy for many complementarians to say that the first couple of chapters of Genesis prove that the man has the authority over his wife but I would like to see which verse says this. If we didn't have this mindset before coming to the book of Genesis, we would not see it because it is not there. God's way is a loving one-flesh union of husband and wife where there is no one taking authority over the other person. If I am wrong, please show me in scripture which verse proves that the husband is to take his authority and make her obey him. You keep speaking about men "TAKING authority. That is not the case. God GAVE men authority and required that they TAKE responsibility in line with the authority God GAVE them. Why are you so confused? Ruth I am not confused. My husband believed that he had authority over me that God had given him. He used that authority and be were both miserable. Having authority means nothing unless you take your authority and use it. Now that we both understand that ours is to be a one-flesh union and his being "head" means that he is to sacrifice for me and not to be my lord, we are both extremely happy. I wouldn't want to interfere in your marriage (if you are married). If you want to have your husband having a position of authority over you and using that authority over you, then go ahead and live however you like. But for my husband and his wife, we are happy to live the life of two submitted people loving each other intensively and each respecting the other. My husband may be called to sacrifice more than I do at times, but that just makes me love him and respect him all the more!

exrockstar said: The head of the family is MAN who comes to the temple to represent his family. It was Job, it was Adam, it was Cain and Able...etc etc etc. Where does the bible say that the man is "the" head of the family? Their is nothing in scripture that says this. The husband and wife are in charge of the family and she is called to rule her family in 1 Timothy 5:14. What some translation render "keep house" is the Greek word oikodespoteō #3616 which means to be the head of (that is, rule) a family: - guide the house. Husband and wife both guide the household and both are given equal authority with the children. If Adam was to represent his family alone, then why didn't God ask him to represent Eve after the fall? No, each person was responsible for their own sin and each was responsible. Adam was not responsible to speak for Eve. In the same way Ananias was not responsible to speak for Sapphira (Acts 5) when he made the decision to lie to the Holy Spirit and she supported him. They each were responsible for their own sin.

I completely disagree with this hypothetical. Children will pit one parent against another only when there is a serious deficiency in the headship of the family. When a child discerns that one parent is weaker than the other he will go to the weaker parent for favors. When the child knows that neither parent is strong he will pit the one against the other and gain control over both. It is only when there is a clear exercise and understanding of the God-ordained headship in the family, with the father as the head, that peace and order come. Children cannot manipulate the mother when she defers authority to the father. Children cannot manipulate the father when he knows the mother receives with joy his authority and agrees with it. I agree and disagree. A united force over the children is what will keep the children out of confusion. However that doesn't mean that the weaker authority (the mother) gives a ruling and the greater authority (the father) contradicts the mother and then the mother defers to the authority of the father. No, it means that either the mother or the father supports the one who has made the original decision. If they decide to change what was originally said to the child, they do it together as a united authority not as a lesser authority bowing to a greater authority. Otherwise the children are going to disregard their mother's authority because she really has no authority at all. When a husband backs up his wife's decision, the children see a strength coming from the dad. That is godly and she does the same for him.

It seems you are making huge stretches in trying to relate incidences of women doing wickedness in the Temple of God and there being male Priests whose responsibility it was to keep order. 1. The Temples of worship are not like a home, they are places where all households come to worship. 2. Husbands are not like priests ..... priests and spiritual leaders are called and gifted by God. 3. the wife is not a man's "congregation", neither is the congregation like a "wife" to a pastor. OopsMartin, this was very well done! And thank you too for trying to bring this back onto the subject. If we were wanting to relate the congregation with the family, then we certainly couldn't relate the priests to the husband since in God's family, God is the Father not the priests. Also in the human family, husband and wife together are the "one-flesh" authority over the children not a progression of levels of authority. Good job Oops!

Did you read the essay at the link I posted? I have already said that I will contend for the faith once and for all delivered, but I do not claim a teaching ministry. Perhaps you could read the link and then you could tell me why you disagree with an exegesis that my spirit willingly accepts, and why you wish to impose on me your exegesis which is abhorrent to my spirit and positively excludes children because it is far too complex for them to understand. This is no small matter - we have no unity of spirit and therefore we cannot both be speaking from the one and true Holy Spirit. One of us is being led by the Holy Spirit and one is not, because apparently our positions are diametrically opposed and as such cannot emanate from the same spirit. It may even be that we are speaking at cross-purposes, and that we even agree!!! which is why I beg you to read the link I posted which upholds equality of worth/value but differentiates between male/female roles and therefore allows authority and under authority. Ruth I have not only read the article, but I have read most of what CBMW has produced including their books, magazines, audio tapes and I also have a few of their DVDs. I am wondering if you read what I wrote? I said there is nothing in scripture about a husband taking authority over his wife. CBMW cannot provide a verse or passage that says this and you have not either. I didn't say that a husband is not the head of his wife. The head is not a place of privilege but a place of service to the wife to provide for her needs. As a result the wife is to respect and love her husband and submit to his service. There is nothing easier than submitting when a man is sacrificing for you. It causes me at least to love my husband and respect him and treat him like gold. We are both very happy and my husband would have it no other way. We lived the complementarian marriage style for most of our marriage and I submitted as I was instructed to by those who pushed complementarianism. My husband naturally took his authority over me and pressured me into submission. Neither one of us was happy because that is not a one-flesh union lived out in respect. It is a ruler/slave relationship. Once my husband stopped doing that and started sacrificing for me, it was so easy to submit to his service. Then I started to mature and be able to make decisions for myself without having someone do my thinking for me. I still consult my husband and now we make our decisions together. I submit to him in that if we do not come to a consensus, then we do not go forward with the decision. If one or the other of us is not comfortable we do not force the other to go along. Also we both agree that in areas of our own expertise that other person submits to our expertise. It works well and it works with respect and love. I have given my DVD "Women in Ministry Silenced or Set Free?" to CBMW and I have respectfully asked them to correct me if my exegesis is faulty. They have said that they don't wish to do a refutation. Now that is a big deal for me. My exegesis has been described as a "fresh" look at the hard passages of scripture and it has caused many Pastors to have another look at egalitarianism. One Pastor wrote me that it corrected his faulty tradition. Now if I was so wrong, why is it that those who have written extensively on the subject on the other side have no correction for me? It is easy for many complementarians to say that the first couple of chapters of Genesis prove that the man has the authority over his wife but I would like to see which verse says this. If we didn't have this mindset before coming to the book of Genesis, we would not see it because it is not there. God's way is a loving one-flesh union of husband and wife where there is no one taking authority over the other person. If I am wrong, please show me in scripture which verse proves that the husband is to take his authority and make her obey him.

I agree too. I can't believe that the scripture really means something as counterintuitive as the egalitarian positions presented in this forum. The exegetical gymnastics used to justify not taking those verses that say things like "the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church" and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" in a straightforward way are incredible. -Neopatriarch The problem with you Neo is that you have still not answered how in context 1 & 2 Timothy can be shown in a verse by verse exegesis how Paul was stopping godly Christian women from teaching correct biblical doctrine to men. If we take this verse "I do not permit a woman" (and by the way the original language actually says "I am not now permitting a woman...") and say that it means "all women" are not permitted to teach any man, then we have a multitude of problems that contradict the context of the passage which is before and after the verse talking about deception, and it makes it a command that has no confirmation in any place in scripture. It just doesn't fit to take it to mean all women. That is why I asked you to show how that is possible by exegeting the passage. Now if it was such a clear meaning, then how come you can't show this meaning in context? How come you can't show us how Paul could possibly be stopping the teaching of correct biblical doctrine? Is it because it isn't as "straightforward" as you claim? I can understand that you really want this passage to be stopping all godly women from teaching you correct biblical doctrine because it somehow offends your complementarian conscience. I can appreciate your passion for your complementarian mindset too. But you are also to rightly divide scripture because we are to show ourselves approved unto God by taking scriptures in their context. When are you going to produce the evidence instead of talking around the problem? Please take chapters 1 and 2 of 1 Timothy and show us all how it fits into the context that Paul is talking about stopping the teaching of correct biblical doctrine. That Paul is not stopping deception but is stopping all godly women. I am still waiting...

methinkshe said: It is my firm belief that those who argue against a husband's headship are attempting to interpret Scripture in such a way as to justify their secular feminist beliefs. The problem here is not understanding what is being argued. It is not arguing against a husband's headship, it is arguing against a husband's authority over. When you define headship as meaning "authority over a wife", then you are going past scripture as God never told the husband to take authority over his "one-flesh" wife nor does scripture say that the husband has authority over her. The bible itself defines "head" as the one who sacrifices of himself to lift her up by providing for her needs including emotional (love) and physical, etc. When we compare the husband to Christ we miss out on one important distinction. Christ is both "head" of the church (his union with the church in an intimate way that allows him to sacrifice himself to provide for her) and he is also "Lord" of the church. His "Lordship" is because of his Deity. Nowhere in scripture (and please do correct me if I am wrong) does scripture give the position of "Lordship" to the husband. He is to be one-flesh with her not her Lord. Although Sarah called Abraham "lord", this was not showing a position of "lordship". This was a common word of respect but there is nothing showing that he had a position of lordship over her. When we truly understand the position that egalitarians are arguing, then we will see that it isn't a position that denegrates marriage nor denies submission. Submission as properly defined in scripture is not a female role or a slave role or a role of Gentiles. Submission is an attitude that we are all expected to have as Christians. Submission is an attitude not a role. When one takes the hierarchal attitude where the husband is the authority over his wife, then children can have much confusion. This is where a child will play one parent against the other if they believe that the father can over rule the mom. It is only when mom and dad stand as a one-flesh union where the dad backs up the mom's decision and the mom backs up the dads discipline that the children truly get to see God's intended design for marriage. When they see the dad taking his authority over their mom and over ruling her authority, the one-flesh union is distorted in their eyes because they now see a ruler/obedient underling relationship instead of the way God intended it. If you believe that "head" means authority over, then please do teach me what I am missing from scripture. Show me where scripture tells the husband to take authority over his wife Why does he have no authority at all to make the decisions unless she submits? This means that the power is in her hands not his. Her submission must be willing not enforced. His submission is show by his willingly giving up his own benefits and his own comfort to meet her needs. He serves her and she serves him. What could be more loving? When he takes authority over her against her will this is not loving, but is in the category of a master/slave and nothing could be further from the truth of "head" than that. My husband has given up much to support me in ministry. He has done it willingly because as my "head" his purpose is to provide for me. I will not serve in ministry unless my husband is walking with me. I am not a lone ranger and I believe that if God has called me to serve in an apologetic ministry he must keep us united or it isn't God's will. My husband has been an amazing support, even giving up his desire to spend his retirement fishing and hunting so that we can serve together in ministry. That is the most precious example of "head" that I can find. And how do I respond? I submit to him and I serve him and I respect him. Together we present a one-flesh union that God intended for our safety and for both of our needs to be met.

Who said that someone has to be in authority? This is the world's way of looking at relationships but Jesus taught a different way. Instead of taking authority and lording it over others, he said that the greatest is the one who is servant of all. Does a servant have authority? They do have authority to use their gifts to benefit the church, but the worldly idea of taking authority over others is not taught by Jesus. Our only authority is Jesus. It is also interesting that submission is taught as a Christian virtue, not merely a female virtue. Jesus submitted to washing the disciple's feet, yet he was their Lord. There is no scripture that ever tells a man to take authority over his wife? Why? Because he isn't to do that. It isn't a Christian virtue. Instead he is to give himself for her. Giving and service is the Christian way not authority and rulership.

Exactly. This verse is showing that since the woman was created to alleviate the man's ALONESS and God made her as a 'helper suitable for him', male-female distiction is NOT one of authority/subordination. There is no FEMALE distinction tied to deception which you are trying to make BECAUSE 2 Co 11:3 which you have quoted is being applied to all of Paul's audience, male or female. Regarding 1 Tim 2:14, Oops is right. It has already been explained how and why Eve fell into deception whereas Adam wasn't decieved. Well done!