Articles
WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FROM SETH MASEK ON LEE GRADY'S ARTICLE 10
LIES THE CHURCH TELLS WOMEN. BARBARA RESPONDED, AND THEY GOT INTO A DISCUSSION
WHICH WE FELT WAS TOO GOOD TO KEEP TO OURSELVES. IT IS PRESENTED WITH SETH'S
PERMISSION. WE TRUST THAT IT MAY ENCOURAGE OTHER "GOOD BEREANS" TO WRITE AND
QUESTION. WITHIN THESE EMAILS THERE IS MATERIAL ON GENESIS.If you would like to contact Seth or Barbara send e-mail
to gwtw@godswordtowomen.org
and it will be forwarded.
In the first exchange Barbara's comments are in bold.
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Collins
Dear Seth:
Thanks so much for your insightful and thoughtful
comments to J. Lee Grady's article on "Ten Lies the Church Tells Women." I have
answered below and have made comments to the questions you raised. I am
delighted that you as a man are exploring this subject. I wish there were
millions more just like you!
Because of Him,
Barbara Collins
"I read your 10 lies article and I found many of your
points quite relevant and appropriate for a proper biblical understanding. I
would not be a good Berean, however, if I did not make but a few comments:
1. God created men and women separately and
differentially. OK, is that an intolerant view? No, not unless you don't let
me explain! God created men and women separately (i.e., not at the same time).
In Gen. 1:26:27, the word for "man" in the Hebrew refers to mankind, man and
woman. This word is used throughout Gen. 1 and 2 until 2:23 where "man" is "iysh"
and refers to man as an individual or a male person. Gen. 5:2--". . .called
THEIR name Adam. . ." The name Adam belonged equally to man and woman. Man at
creation was male and female in one person. No problem, and that doesn't
have anything to do with equality under sin. Just a statement of fact that you
won't argue (but is important to understand nonetheless) God created men and
women differentially (i.e., with different attributes). Yes, they were
created with different attributes.
God didn't make men and women the same, such that they
could substitute one another. Rather, He created them opposite, such that they
would complement one another, forming a union as strong as the nuclear force
(the strongest force known in the universe). Yes. Because men and women were
created equal, women are not inferior to men. Both are mutually submissive to
each other and together form an almost indissoluble union. (Gen. 2:22).
Here are some key areas where God create men and women quite differentially:
a. Physiologically - Men have "male adapters" and women
have "female adapters," if you know what I mean. This is an obvious
complimentary system in which we are able to reproduce. Men and women also
differ significantly chemically (the male testosterone to the female
progesterone, for example). We are clearly different on a strictly physical
level. This is obvious.
b. Emotionally - There can be no doubt that men and
women differ emotionally. Here is where people like to point out exceptions to
the rule. However, just as men and women are different physically, they are also
just as different emotionally. Women tend (note the word tend) to be more
emotional than men (read about the women Hitler commissioned to fight during the
closing stages of WWII...they had a little different perspective on killing than
men did - and that was a good thing). Experience (and marriage) proves this
point all too clearly.
c. Spiritually - Just as men and women were created as
physically and emotionally distinct creatures, our God also created men and
women to fulfill certain roles in life, all to the glory of Jesus Christ (which
is the purpose of all things). Woman was not created after man, but both
were created together at the same time. Man and woman are equals, and both need
each other to complement one another. They are equal as persons and in position
and are equally responsible. The simplest evidence of this is the curse of
God in Genesis 3 (I think 3, but it is in there!). God curses Eve, curses Adam,
and curses the Serpent. Each curse is distinct and separate, indicating already
that men and women will be fulfilling certain roles. Seth, I agree with
points a. and b., however, I'm glad you're a Berean. If you'll look back to
Genesis 3, you will see that God did not curse Adam or Eve, but He did curse the
serpent and the ground. To both, He stated the consequences that would occur
because of their sin.
However, there is a common denominator in EACH curse:
suffering. For the man, it is his work, for the woman it is childbearing, and
for the Serpent, it is getting his head crushed by the seed of the woman.
Unlike the Serpent, however, the suffering of men and women will ultimately lead
to their hope, as we know that suffering leads to perseverance, perseverance to
character and character to hope. The point here is that men and women have
different modes of suffering, thus indicating that they have different modes in
life - all of which is to the glory of Jesus Christ. However, much of
woman's suffering has come through a misinterpretation of Gen. 3:16--". . .and
he shall rule over you." The New Covenant superseded the Old which was just a
shadow of better things to come. At the time of the cutting of the New Covenant
at the cross of Christ, no more would there be Jew nor Greek, male nor female,
bond nor free; Christ was all in all. (Gal. 3:28; 2 Cor. 5:17). In the Kingdom
of God, there was no hierarchy, no second-class citizenship; no more
superior-inferior; lord-servant. Everything evil brought into the world by
Adam's sin including woman's subjugation, has been removed by the Last Adam.
Even if it were a curse on Eve, whicvh it wasn't, to have her husband rule over
her, the curse was removed by Christ on the Cross (Gal. 3:13). Man's desire to
aggressively dominate was replaced by the love of Christ.
Yes, I said Adam's sin. Adam carries the
responsibility for the Fall. (1) "Adam was not deceived (when he willfully
sinned), but the woman being (thoroughly) deceived was in the transgression (of
Adam)." I. Tim. 2:14. (2) "In Adam all die. . ." I. Cor. 15:22. (3) ". . .by
one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin. . ." Ro. 5:12. The New
Testament plainly states that Adam is responsible for bringing sin into the
world. Eight times, Paul declares "one person" alone was accountable for the
Fall and twice mentions that person as Adam. Adam was the chief offender
because he was not deceived. Adam's transgression was not that single act of
eating, but his refusal to be that which God created him to be. Eve
transgressed the commandment because of deception. The disobedience of Adam,
who was not deceived, brought death to the entire human race.
Well, I could go on and on. As you might already see, I
am not really debating any one point. I would warn that many of the
justifications given for a specific point amount to conjecture, and don't really
give a concrete answer to the Scripture(s) at hand. For example, in lie #8 a
book is referenced for an "understanding" of Paul's point. I don't know what
you are referring to. I know that on p. 149 of his book by the same name, he
quotes Katharine Bushnell's, God's Word to Women. If you don't have a copy of
this book, you may order one from our website. I believe it is the most
complete book on the subject of the biblical woman. I would argue that the
Paul doesn't mention that context, and that the context is being placed upon
Paul's writing based on the presupposition that he can't be saying what he is
saying on a global scale (because that would indicate that God was dealing with
men and women differently). Also statements like "Most theologians believe that
this passage was addressing an isolated situation in Ephesus" (In biblical
exegesis, the cultural context is always an important consideration) don't
really answer any questions...after all, most of the world isn't Christian.
It is hard to get inside Paul's head to know what he was
really trying to address (i.e., isolated events versus global statements of
Christendom). You do the right thing by searching other Scriptures looking for
links that might help clarify the situation (this is a great practice that ALL
Christians should adhere to). However, pointing to the OT is a slight mistake
in this context...unless you want to reinstitute Mosaic Law in the place of
Christ's atonement. (Good point, Seth. Many want to take women back to Gen.
3:16 and put her under the consequences of her disobedience. God wants to
restore woman and man to original creation where they were co-regents. Nowhere
in the creation account do we see man ruling over woman, and woman living out
the idea that she was created to serve her husband. God created the man and
woman to rule and subdue the rest of creation, including satanic forces, but not
to rule over one another. The dominion He gave them would depend on their
continuing to obey God.) God uses each person to accomplish His work
(Romans 9).
The key here is this: blessed are the meek...not the
strong, not the motivated, not the powerful. No, God opposes the proud and
gives grace to the humble. When Paul advises slaves to obey their masters, he
is not condoning slavery. He is showing us that God loves servants. If a woman
submits to her husband, God will look more favorably on this then a husband who
does not love his wife. It is pretty clear really: clothe ourselves in
humility. Yes, the whole thought of "subjection" teaches a humble and
conciliatory spirit, not a servile one. "Subjecting yourselves one to another
in the fear of Christ." (Eph. 5:21). Paul makes this statement without regard
to sex and Peter likewise said, "Yes, all of you be subject (submissive, NKJ) to
one another, and be clothed with humility. . ." (I. Pet. 5:5). Both of these
passages call for "subjection" from men. Paul told the Corinthians to submit. .
.to everyone who works and labors with us." (I. Cor. 16:16). Phoebe labored
with Paul as did Priscilla, whom Paul called "my helper." (Ro. 16). Here is a
clear command which included men to "be in subjection" to women as those who
worked and labored with Paul.
Well, I have said enough. I hope you see what I am
hitting at here, and you probably know all of this already. Keep up the good
work, and bringing people to Jesus Christ...male or female.
Seth Masek
From: Seth Masek
To: Barbara Collins
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2001 7:36 AM
Subject: RE: Reply to Your Email to GWTW
Wow. I am so impressed with your comments! We might
squabble over points here or there, but I must say to you that you are one of
the rare people to actually respond so quickly and thoroughly to question. I
might have to argue the whole male/female created at the same time (in the
space/time continuum) because God saw that man didn't have anyone to "hang"
with, unlike the animals...it was as if God noticed Adam was missing out on
something...enter Eve. Ahh, well, it doesn't matter too much - this isn't an
issue so much to me, in the sense that there is no doubt men and women are
equally condemned under sin, and are saved freely by God's grace by faith in
Jesus Christ's saving work on the Cross.
Now, I do have one more little question, and I am asking
you because it is evident you are cool (I like using "hip" words). When Paul
explains to Timothy how to setup churches, he instructs him on selecting deacons
and elders. A main requirement is that they are "the husband of one wife."
What does that mean?
Just so you know, I have been greatly disappointed in
previous discussions with Roman Catholics, charismatics, and others, when I try
to talk about the Bible with them. The discussion generally concludes with
anger or general hostility (although much of the time, apathy, which is by far
the worst). I was so impressed by your response! Well, enough puffing you up!
Keep up the good work!
Seth Masek
p.s. - excuse any spelling mistakes please...after all,
I am just a man.
For I
am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth...and this is the gospel of Christ...And
all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and
hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and
hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation...Therefo re being justified
by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Dear Seth:
One point I wanted to make but didn't think of it until
later. "For Adam was first formed, then Eve." (I. Tim. 2:13). In Gen. 1,
"created" is used for these three realms--the universe, the animal kingdom, and
man(kind). Gen. 2 doesn't use the word "create" but a totally different
word--"formed." The word "formed" is a process in addition to creation which
speaks of development or elaboration. Paul referred to this word in the above
scripture. "Create" is to call something out of nothing into existence. Gen. 1
and 5 says both male and female were created. Later, Gen. 2, they were "formed"
or developed, and Adam was formed first. Woman was then formed as the finishing
touch and completion of God's creation. Woman was not made of dust but came out
of the side of Adam. She was "twice-refined." Gen. 1 and 2 are not
contradictory accounts. Gen. 2 merely gives a more detailed explanation. Man
being created "in the image of God" is the three-part nature of both God and
man. (2:7).
Regarding Adam's aloneness, William Law, a learned
theologian, declared: "Adam had lost much of his first perfection before his
Eve was taken out of him; which was done to prevent worse effects of his fall
and to prepare a means of his recovery when his fall should become total. . ."
The first step toward the redemption of man, who was gradually beginning to
fall, was the taking of Eve out of him. After Adam was created, "God saw
everything that He had made, and, behold it was very good." (1:31) Later, God
said, "It is not good that the man should be alone." What were the signs that
the "very good" state of humanity became "not good?"
1. Adam was offered "freely" the tree of life but did
not eat of it. (2:16; 3:22)
2. Adam was made keeper and dresser of the Garden, but
Satan later enters it in the form of a serpent. (2:15)
3. Had God simply meant by "not good" that one person
alone was not desirable, the Hebrew expression for "one alone" as in Isaiah
51:2, for instance, would have been used. In her book GWTW, Katharine Bushnell
says that "alone" means "in-his-separation." She then asks from whom was Adam
"in separation" but from God. Adam had begun to lose delight in communion with
God and to take a great interest in the natural creation about him--his work.
So many men still do the same. God would instruct Adam that they were not
suitable as his companions and equals by supplying a "help meet," or a "helper
comparable to him." (NKJV) What was the purpose of dividing man into male and
female? Through the woman in co-operation with the divine will, deliverance
from sin might come, and the female would become free from all dominion but
God's. What could better frustrate this plan than for woman to be taught that
God demands that she submerge her identity into man? Seth, I can't take credit
for the above two paragraphs which are verbatim or summarized from Katharine
Bushnell. I'd never heard this explanation before I read Bushnell's book. It
makes a lot of sense.
In regard to your question about "the husband of one
wife," I've heard all sorts of interpretations. I agree with the footnote in
Zodhiates' Hebrew Greek Key Study Bible which says, "'The husband of one wife
does not mean that he, the bishop or the deacon (see v. 12), was never married
before. Nor does it mean that in order to be a bishop or a deacon, one must be
married. Paul was certainly considered both a bishop and a deacon, and he was
never married. If this meant that a bishop or a deacon was never to have been
married before, then it would exclude a remarried widower. But the Apostle Paul
in Rom. 7:1-3 places no restriction upon a widower to remarry. In the case of
divorce, neither the Lord Jesus nor the Apostle Paul places such a restriction
on a divorced person who was the innocent party in the unfortunate God-hated
divorce process which is the result of man's sinfulness." I trust this
explanation will help you.
Your "p.s." asks me to excuse your spelling mistakes.
Okay, I will if you'll forgive mine. What's all that Greek at the end of your
message?
Because of Him,
Barbara Collins
From: Seth Masek
To: 'Barbara Collins'
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 9:49 AM
Subject: RE: Reply to Your Email to GWTW
Once again, thanks for the great responses. I am
impressed by the amount of Scripture used to articulate the position (this is
exactly what I am looking for when I discern an argument). Just because man was
created (or formed) first in the space/time continuum means nothing really. It
is obvious that it was God's will for woman to be formed, as He had foreordained
the coming of His Son for the remittance of sin before the earth's foundations
were laid. Thus, it is of no consequence really that woman was formed after
Adam (I need no real explanation here...there is certainly no evidence to
indicate that being formed second means anything about how God views mankind).
The arguments by Katharine Bushnell are interesting, but once again based upon
presuppositions, etc. Saying that Adam was losing interest in communion with
God is a bit speculative. We definitely experience loneliness (as an emotion)
and God created us with the emotions. It is not unreasonable to assume that
Adam may have been "lonely" but really the Scriptures are silent on the
emotional state of Adam, and on the level of his communion with God. These are
inferred, but not demonstrated by the logic used to infer them. OK, too many
words about this! I really don't read too much into any of this part, as it was
all part of God's sovereign plan from the beginning.
Now, about the Pauline instructions to Timothy (and
Titus I believe). My question really wasn't answered. Paul says "the husband
of one wife." OK, now I understand that Paul wasn't married (he even
recommended against marriage), and that marriage may not be a direct requirement
for eldership. However, the text is consistently masculine. This is clear from
the text. Now, I know about Romans 16 already. My wife and I, of course,
discuss these things with one another because they are of great interest. What
I am asking is this: why would Paul say "the husband of one wife" as opposed to
perhaps "the spouse of a single partner" (in better words of course!). Why
husband? And why did Paul use "he" so much in those statements. Do you see
what I am asking? I am just trying to get a feel for how this Scripture would
be interpreted, bearing in mind the greetings of Romans 16. I am not trying to
be pushy on this issue, but I'm really interested to hear how these Scriptures
are interpreted.
The Greek symbols at the end of my e-mail are a "code"
containing Scripture passages. Break the code by simply highlighting the text,
and changing the font to something like Arial. You will then see the revealed
Scripture(s)! Yes, it is nerdy, but it is just so fun!
Thanks so much,
Seth
For I
am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto
salvation to every one that believeth...and this is the gospel of Christ...And
all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and
hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and
hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation...Therefo re being justified
by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Dear Seth:
First of all, let me say how much I love your "code" at
the end of your email. I've just got to use it myself soon. Thanks for sharing
it with me.
Regarding I. Timothy 3, the first question to be asked
is leadership male only, or male and female? Although the word "man" is used in
3:1, 5 for someone seeking the office of Bishop, the Greek word used it tis, a
neuter word meaning male or female. Had Paul wanted to communicate that this
office was to be limited to the male gender, he would have used the word andron,
which specifies male only.
Women served as elders and deacons in the early church
just as the men; yet with the onset of apostasy, their ministry declined. By
the third century, women deacons were being called "deaconesses." Although they
were still being ordained, their ministry was looked upon as something less than
a male deacon.
Now, let's look at 3:11. In KJ and NKJ the word "wives"
is used. However, that women are included in the list of qualifications for
bishops and deacons is seen in the word "likewise" which is hosautos
in the
Greek. "Likewise" joins the whole list of qualifications of bishops/elders with
deacons and with women which A.V. translates as "wives." Paul first gives the
requirements for men seeking the office of bishop/elder and deacon and then
gives some additional ones for women. In his book, Who Says a Woman Can't
Teach?, Charles Trombley says that "some commentators say Paul gives additional
requirements for the bishops' and deacons' wives. Since there isn't a definite
article in the sentence construction, nor is the possessive case used, this
suggestion must be rejected." (p. 195). "Women," then, is the correct
translation.
After completing his list of qualifications for bishop
and deacons, (1-10), he continued by including women when he said gunaikas
hosautos or "women likewise." Hosautos links the enitre list of qualifications
with one another. It links the deacons with the bishops/elders in v. 8 and then
links them women in v. 11.
All of that to say, why did Paul specifically specify
"the husband of one wife" in v. 2 or regarding deacons "husbands of one wife" in
v. 12 or regarding elders in Titus 1:6 "the husband of one wife"? First, I
will give you the footnote in the Study Bible for Women - New Testament. That
Bible is the New Revised Standard Version and is the first major English
translation of the Bible to attempt to redress the inherent bias of the English
language toward the masculine gender. The translators recognized many problems
for women in the English language and have taken steps in this version to
eliminate some of them. Polygamy was still practiced in first-century Judaism,
but we do know that it was finally outlawed by the Code of Justinian. This
reference to the "husband of one wife" would apply only to males as no woman was
permitted to have more than one husband. Women were particularly admired by the
Romans if they were univira - having had only one husband. These last two
sentences sum up another footnote in this Bible.
Footnote on Titus 1:6: "'Married only once' literally
means 'husband of one wife.' This phrase has several interpretative options.
(1) The elder or pastor is required to be married. (2) Polygamy is prohibited.
(3) Second marriages are prohibited, either after the death of a spouse or due
to divorce. (4) Marital fidelity to one wife is required."
Why doesn't Paul mention somewhere "wife of one
husband?" Personally, and I can't prove this, he spoke specifically to the men
because the men were always the ones getting involved in polygamy. It was never
a wife with a number of husbands, but a husband with many wives. I trust the
above will shed some light on your question.
Because of Him,
Barbara Collins
|