Changes

==After Sin==

==After Sin==

God turns to Adam first and demands an explanation. Adam's response is to blame not only Eve but also God ("[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:12;&version=72; the woman you gave me]"). He says nothing about his failure to act, but note also that he doesn't deny having been with her at the time; that is, he doesn't appeal to having been unaware of the temptation. Then Eve is challenged, and her response is true; she makes no effort to pass blame or change the story, and freely admits to having eaten the fruit. We must keep these facts in mind when reading about God's judgment of the matter.

God turns to Adam first and demands an explanation. Adam's response is to blame not only Eve but also God <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:12;&version=72</ref>He says nothing about his failure to act, but note also that he doesn't deny having been with her at the time; that is, he doesn't appeal to having been unaware of the temptation. Then Eve is challenged, and her response is true; she makes no effort to pass blame or change the story, and freely admits to having eaten the fruit. We must keep these facts in mind when reading about God's judgment of the matter.

First God [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:14-15;&version=72; curses the serpent] directly and physically; he would crawl on his belly and eat dust. Then he adds that he will deliberately put "enmity" or extreme hostility between the serpent and Eve, and between her "seed" and his "seed"<ref>The meaning of the phrase is debated, and is not further explained in the immediate context. But we do at least have some NT help. In Mt. 13:38 Jesus defines literal "seeds" in the parable as corresponding to either children of God (believers like Eve) or children of Satan (rebels against God like Adam). So at least in the first part of the "enmity" verses we can understand it as speaking of the perennial hostility between those two groups (certainly '''not''' merely between women and snakes!). But the second part is specific to individuals: he (lit. ''it'') will strike your (the serpent&#39;s) head, and you (the serpent) will strike his heel.</ref>. But the next statement about what each "seed" will do involves future individuals. So a future "seed of the woman" will crush a future "seed of the serpent", and this is tied to their mutual hostility. We have to wait for the New Testament (NT) for elaboration on the meaning of this section, but it should be noted that this future hostility is still part of the curse on the serpent, and it is specifically stated to be the seed of only the woman who would crush the serpent. There is no statement in all the Bible that explains ''why'' God chose only the woman's seed; every explanation has to come from inference. But we can note the fact that there was a difference in the motivation for sin between Adam and Eve: Adam was not deceived and so sinned deliberately, while Eve was deceived into sinning. She nonetheless took responsibility, admitting she sinned, but also spoke truthfully about the serpent's role.  

First God curses the serpent <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:14-15;&version=72</ref> directly and physically; he would crawl on his belly and eat dust. Then he adds that he will deliberately put "enmity" or extreme hostility between the serpent and Eve, and between her "seed" and his "seed"<ref>The meaning of the phrase is debated, and is not further explained in the immediate context. But we do at least have some NT help. In Mt. 13:38 Jesus defines literal "seeds" in the parable as corresponding to either children of God (believers like Eve) or children of Satan (rebels against God like Adam). So at least in the first part of the "enmity" verses we can understand it as speaking of the perennial hostility between those two groups (certainly '''not''' merely between women and snakes!). But the second part is specific to individuals: he (lit. ''it'') will strike your (the serpent&#39;s) head, and you (the serpent) will strike his heel.</ref>. But the next statement about what each "seed" will do involves future individuals. So a future "seed of the woman" will crush a future "seed of the serpent", and this is tied to their mutual hostility. We have to wait for the New Testament (NT) for elaboration on the meaning of this section, but it should be noted that this future hostility is still part of the curse on the serpent, and it is specifically stated to be the seed of only the woman who would crush the serpent. There is no statement in all the Bible that explains ''why'' God chose only the woman's seed; every explanation has to come from inference. But we can note the fact that there was a difference in the motivation for sin between Adam and Eve: Adam was not deceived and so sinned deliberately, while Eve was deceived into sinning. She nonetheless took responsibility, admitting she sinned, but also spoke truthfully about the serpent's role.  

Now God turns to Eve and makes a [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:16;&version=72; deliberate statement]: he would make her "bring forth children in sorrow" <ref>The word typically translated "pain" here is the same word translated "sorrow" or "painful toil" for Adam when he is told of his requirement to grow food.</ref>. Then he makes not a command or curse but a prediction ("will", not "shall"): Eve would turn (possibly "desire" but no indication of what this desire was) to Adam and this would result in his ruling over her. Note first of all that Adam's rule over Eve was put in the future, so it '''did not exist in the present'''. Put another way, if Adam already had rule over Eve, why would God predict it here and make it a future event? God did not say Adam would ''continue'' to rule or rule harshly or more effectively, but just rule. Another reason we know God did not command this rulership is that he had just blessed Eve with the promise of her seed alone crushing the seed of the serpent who had deceived her (remember it was part of ''the serpent's'' curse). To turn completely around and curse her with servitude to the man who had blamed her and God for his sin and failed to step in while she was being tempted, would be to say God rewards poor leadership and passing blame, even to the point of blaming God. Adam had proven himself disqualified to lead and unworthy of God's blessing with rulership over the one he failed to lead and protect.

Now God turns to Eve and makes a deliberate statement <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:16;&version=72</ref> he would make her "bring forth children in sorrow" <ref>The word typically translated "pain" here is the same word translated "sorrow" or "painful toil" for Adam when he is told of his requirement to grow food.</ref>. Then he makes not a command or curse but a prediction ("will", not "shall"): Eve would turn (possibly "desire" but no indication of what this desire was) to Adam and this would result in his ruling over her. Note first of all that Adam's rule over Eve was put in the future, so it '''did not exist in the present'''. Put another way, if Adam already had rule over Eve, why would God predict it here and make it a future event? God did not say Adam would ''continue'' to rule or rule harshly or more effectively, but just rule. Another reason we know God did not command this rulership is that he had just blessed Eve with the promise of her seed alone crushing the seed of the serpent who had deceived her (remember it was part of ''the serpent's'' curse). To turn completely around and curse her with servitude to the man who had blamed her and God for his sin and failed to step in while she was being tempted, would be to say God rewards poor leadership and passing blame, even to the point of blaming God. Adam had proven himself disqualified to lead and unworthy of God's blessing with rulership over the one he failed to lead and protect.

Nothing is said about future generations in this passage except the woman's future seed crushing the serpent's future seed. What God said to Adam and Eve, he said directly to them. There are no statements to the effect of putting all men over all women, or all husbands over all wives, for all future generations. Any theories about how God's words here affected future generations are only conjecture and anecdotal evidence. We can fill in some blanks in hindsight, but the passage itself says nothing about the future of all humanity.

Nothing is said about future generations in this passage except the woman's future seed crushing the serpent's future seed. What God said to Adam and Eve, he said directly to them. There are no statements to the effect of putting all men over all women, or all husbands over all wives, for all future generations. Any theories about how God's words here affected future generations are only conjecture and anecdotal evidence. We can fill in some blanks in hindsight, but the passage itself says nothing about the future of all humanity.

Now God turns to Adam and makes a [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:17-19;&version=72; deliberate statement]: the ground would be cursed, producing thorns and thistles, he would eat the plants of the field (before they were only told to eat fruit), and he would return to the dust from which he was taken. Note that Adam was not cursed directly; there is nothing said about his spirit or Eve's, or their future offspring. Finally, Adam is [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24;&version=50; driven out] of the garden to prevent his eating from the Tree of Life. The Hebrew states that only "the man" was barred from the Tree of Life and banished from the garden. Why only Adam? The text doesn't say. It tells us Eve would turn to him, but it doesn't say why. All we know is that God predicted Eve would go with Adam, and then he would rule over her.

Now God turns to Adam and makes a deliberate statement: <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:17-19;&version=72</ref> the ground would be cursed, producing thorns and thistles, he would eat the plants of the field (before they were only told to eat fruit), and he would return to the dust from which he was taken. Note that Adam was not cursed directly; there is nothing said about his spirit or Eve's, or their future offspring. Finally, Adam is driven out <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:22-24;&version=50</ref> of the garden to prevent his eating from the Tree of Life. The Hebrew states that only "the man" was barred from the Tree of Life and banished from the garden. Why only Adam? The text doesn't say. It tells us Eve would turn to him, but it doesn't say why. All we know is that God predicted Eve would go with Adam, and then he would rule over her.

(Note: some English translations, even the [http://www.tniv.info/ TNIV], translate "him" as "them" without explanation; compare also with the use of "had formed" for the animals in chapter 2 which in the Hebrew is only "formed". In these instances the [http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=50&lang=2 KJV] is accurate. Also note the order of events in [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%20;&version=72; chapter 2]: God says he will make a helper for Adam, then brings him animals to name, then makes Eve. Why is the account of making/naming animals put between God's announcement of his intention to make Eve and his actually making her, if the making/naming of animals had happened before? Even if the animals were made earlier, which the [http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19 Hebrew] and [http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=formed&section=1&it=kjv&ot=lxx&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search LXX] do not support, and Adam only named them here, we still have to ask the significance of the timing. We cannot lightly dismiss the argument that God brought animals to Adam for the purpose of preparing him for Eve. In addition, we see that only Adam is told he would "return to dust"; it is his fate alone. But since Eve chose to follow him out of the garden, we know in hindsight that she and all her descendants would also share in Adam's fate.)

(Note: some English translations, even the TNIV <ref>http://www.tniv.info/</ref>, translate "him" as "them" without explanation; compare also with the use of "had formed" for the animals in chapter 2 which in the Hebrew is only "formed". In these instances the KJV <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=50&lang=2</ref> is accurate. Also note the order of events in chapter 2 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202%20;&version=72</ref>: God says he will make a helper for Adam, then brings him animals to name, then makes Eve. Why is the account of making/naming animals put between God's announcement of his intention to make Eve and his actually making her, if the making/naming of animals had happened before? Even if the animals were made earlier, which the Hebrew <ref>http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Gen&chapter=2&verse=19&version=KJV#19</ref> and LXX <ref>http://www.searchgodsword.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=formed&section=1&it=kjv&ot=lxx&nt=na&Enter=Perform+Search</ref> do not support, and Adam only named them here, we still have to ask the significance of the timing. We cannot lightly dismiss the argument that God brought animals to Adam for the purpose of preparing him for Eve. In addition, we see that only Adam is told he would "return to dust"; it is his fate alone. But since Eve chose to follow him out of the garden, we know in hindsight that she and all her descendants would also share in Adam's fate.)

What we see in Genesis 1-3 is most striking for what it ''does not'' say. We can add more through the NT teachings and references, but before we do that we must know what's actually stated. The context includes considering what it meant at the time it was written.  

What we see in Genesis 1-3 is most striking for what it ''does not'' say. We can add more through the NT teachings and references, but before we do that we must know what's actually stated. The context includes considering what it meant at the time it was written.  

Although God only spoke of Adam ruling Eve, the pattern of male domination continued through all generations, even extending to some men ruling over other men. But rather than this historical pattern indicating God's expressed will or natural order, as complementarianism argues, it shows the fulfillment of God's prediction of the consequences of sin, and we see as we go through the OT some notable exceptions.

Although God only spoke of Adam ruling Eve, the pattern of male domination continued through all generations, even extending to some men ruling over other men. But rather than this historical pattern indicating God's expressed will or natural order, as complementarianism argues, it shows the fulfillment of God's prediction of the consequences of sin, and we see as we go through the OT some notable exceptions.

In [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016%20;&version=72; Genesis 16] (also [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2021%20;&version=72; 21]) God orders Abraham to listen to his wife. And when she tells him to send Hagar and Ishmael away, God talks directly to Hagar and makes a promise to her. Note that Hagar names God (16:13); here we have direct evidence that God does not consider the one giving names to be superior. Along with that, there are many instances where God is the "helper"<ref>[http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/word%20study/ezerkenegdo.htm word study], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=10&verse=14&version=72&context=verse Ps. 10:14], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=27&verse=9&version=72&context=verse Ps. 27:9]</ref>, showing that helpers can be superior.  

In Genesis 16 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2016%20;&version=72</ref> (also 21 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2021%20;&version=72</ref>) God orders Abraham to listen to his wife. And when she tells him to send Hagar and Ishmael away, God talks directly to Hagar and makes a promise to her. Note that Hagar names God (16:13); here we have direct evidence that God does not consider the one giving names to be superior. Along with that, there are many instances where God is the "helper"<ref>[http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/word%20study/ezerkenegdo.htm word study], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=10&verse=14&version=72&context=verse Ps. 10:14], [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=27&verse=9&version=72&context=verse Ps. 27:9]</ref>, showing that helpers can be superior.  

There are of course other notable women in the OT. Abigail saved her people from slaughter when her "foolish" husband set himself against David. Queen Ester took her life in her hands to save the Jews from genocide, something she was not forced to do. Ruth, a Moabite and ancestor of Jesus, was so selfless as to be completely dedicated to her mother-in-law Naomi, and boldly approached Boaz about his duty as a Jewish kinsman. Their child was called a son of Naomi rather than of Ruth's dead husband or even Boaz. But what about leaders of men? Did God ever choose a woman for that?

There are of course other notable women in the OT. Abigail saved her people from slaughter when her "foolish" husband set himself against David. Queen Ester took her life in her hands to save the Jews from genocide, something she was not forced to do. Ruth, a Moabite and ancestor of Jesus, was so selfless as to be completely dedicated to her mother-in-law Naomi, and boldly approached Boaz about his duty as a Jewish kinsman. Their child was called a son of Naomi rather than of Ruth's dead husband or even Boaz. But what about leaders of men? Did God ever choose a woman for that?

Miriam, sister of Moses, was called a prophet (Ex. 15:20). In Judges 4 we see Deborah, another prophet, who was leading Israel and held court in a public place. She settled disputes and even summoned a man, Barak, to give him orders from the Lord. There is nothing in the context to indicate anything inferior about her leadership; were this a man, nobody would question it. And because Barak wouldn't go to battle without her, the honor of killing his enemy Sisera was given to another woman, Jael. Huldah was yet another prophet, who said "Thus saith the Lord" like any male prophet would. It is [http://www.midcry.org/minofwom.htm claimed] by complementarianism that God was only "scraping the bottom of the barrel" in using these women for leadership and prophecy, but the Bible does not support this at all; there is nothing in any of the passages to give us that option.

Miriam, sister of Moses, was called a prophet (Ex. 15:20). In Judges 4 we see Deborah, another prophet, who was leading Israel and held court in a public place. She settled disputes and even summoned a man, Barak, to give him orders from the Lord. There is nothing in the context to indicate anything inferior about her leadership; were this a man, nobody would question it. And because Barak wouldn't go to battle without her, the honor of killing his enemy Sisera was given to another woman, Jael. Huldah was yet another prophet, who said "Thus saith the Lord" like any male prophet would. It is claimed <ref>http://www.midcry.org/minofwom.htm</ref> by complementarianism that God was only "scraping the bottom of the barrel" in using these women for leadership and prophecy, but the Bible does not support this at all; there is nothing in any of the passages to give us that option.

So the pages of the OT, rather than dictating male supremacy, show how God sometimes circumvents the norm and gives honor and promises of greatness to women. Yet technically, this is all after the entrance of sin and before the Cross. It really cannot be used to apply over the NT in general or the church in particular, because as we will see in studying the NT, Jesus ("the last Adam") would come to undo what Adam had done and bring us back to the pre-sin environment. At the very least, we can say the OT does not portray these "exceptional" women as God's last resort or punishment for lazy or disobedient men.  

So the pages of the OT, rather than dictating male supremacy, show how God sometimes circumvents the norm and gives honor and promises of greatness to women. Yet technically, this is all after the entrance of sin and before the Cross. It really cannot be used to apply over the NT in general or the church in particular, because as we will see in studying the NT, Jesus ("the last Adam") would come to undo what Adam had done and bring us back to the pre-sin environment. At the very least, we can say the OT does not portray these "exceptional" women as God's last resort or punishment for lazy or disobedient men.  

In reading the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus, we see some radical departures from societal norms. He said things like "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath" and "Among the gentiles, people rule over other people, but it must not be that way among you". He internalized religion instead of the tradition of outward performance. But he also treated women as equal with men in every way.

In reading the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus, we see some radical departures from societal norms. He said things like "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath" and "Among the gentiles, people rule over other people, but it must not be that way among you". He internalized religion instead of the tradition of outward performance. But he also treated women as equal with men in every way.

An example is the account of Mary and Martha ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:38-42&version=72 Luke 10:38-42]). To sit at the feet of a rabbi was an exclusively male right, yet Jesus defended Mary for doing so. And then there is the account of Jesus being anointed [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:6-13;&version=72; at Bethany], his being touched by the "sinful woman" of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:38;&version=72; Luke 7:38], and the [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=4&version=72&context=chapter Samaritan woman] with whom he spoke publicly. And of course the first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:1-10;&version=72; women]. Women were also among his [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%208:1-3;&version=72; traveling companions], another scandal at the time.

An example is the account of Mary and Martha <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2010:38-42&version=72</ref>. To sit at the feet of a rabbi was an exclusively male right, yet Jesus defended Mary for doing so. And then there is the account of Jesus being anointed at Bethany <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2026:6-13;&version=72</ref>, his being touched by the "sinful woman" of Luke 7:38 <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%207:38;&version=72</ref>, and the Samaritan woman <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=4&version=72&context=chapter</ref> with whom he spoke publicly. And of course the first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were women <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028:1-10;&version=72</ref>. Women were also among his traveling companions <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%208:1-3;&version=72</ref>, another scandal at the time.

In Acts we see that on the Day of Pentecost, both men and women were given the Spirit and spoke in other languages, in at least partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:17-18). Note that women too would prophesy, that is, speak to the crowds of men and women publicly about God. There is no indication that female prophets were of a lesser rank than male prophets, or that female prophets only ever spoke to women or only in private. We can add the teaching ministry of Priscilla and Aquila, and the fact that Ananias and Sapphira were each held accountable for their own sins. There are no instances where these passages in any way discount the ministry, worth, or roles of women in the church. The [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&version=72&context=chapter Jerusalem Council] did not make any long list of rules about who could do what, beyond asking for sensitivity to Jewish customs, and even then only restricting the new church from eating the blood of animals or being sexually immoral.

In Acts we see that on the Day of Pentecost, both men and women were given the Spirit and spoke in other languages, in at least partial fulfillment of Joel's prophecy (Acts 2:17-18). Note that women too would prophesy, that is, speak to the crowds of men and women publicly about God. There is no indication that female prophets were of a lesser rank than male prophets, or that female prophets only ever spoke to women or only in private. We can add the teaching ministry of Priscilla and Aquila, and the fact that Ananias and Sapphira were each held accountable for their own sins. There are no instances where these passages in any way discount the ministry, worth, or roles of women in the church. The Jerusalem Council <ref>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=15&version=72&context=chapter</ref> did not make any long list of rules about who could do what, beyond asking for sensitivity to Jewish customs, and even then only restricting the new church from eating the blood of animals or being sexually immoral.

It is often pointed out that all Jesus' inner group of disciples were men. Yet  this precedes the church and is still tied at least symbolically to the 12 tribes of Israel. They had to be witnesses to the Jews, something that would never have been accepted from women. Another claim is that since Jesus was physically a male, then all church leaders must also be male. But of course Jesus was more than just male; he was also Jewish and single.One cannot only choose one quality as a necessary representation of Jesus.

It is often pointed out that all Jesus' inner group of disciples were men. Yet  this precedes the church and is still tied at least symbolically to the 12 tribes of Israel. They had to be witnesses to the Jews, something that would never have been accepted from women. Another claim is that since Jesus was physically a male, then all church leaders must also be male. But of course Jesus was more than just male; he was also Jewish and single.One cannot only choose one quality as a necessary representation of Jesus.