Topic: Biblical Manhood & Womanhood Format: Softcover Book Pages: 62 Publisher: Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Product Code: BCQ

50 Crucial Questions About Manhood and Womanhood Adapted from chapter two of Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood. Larry Crabb writes, "In this booklet, John Piper and Wayne Grudem have tackled some of the most important questions that need to be asked about manhood and womanhood and they have done so with clarity, balance, and a thoughtfully firm dependence on biblical data." John Piper says, "This is the booklet I return to most often in dealing with the knotty issues of manhood and womanhood in ministry." Download this book (PDF).

he knotty issues of manhood and womanhood in ministry."

Complementarian Series from Mark Dever

Denny Burk @ http://www.dennyburk.com noted a series from Dr. Mark Dever is the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C. Dr. Dever recently completed an excellent sermon series on gender roles, and all of the audio is available via his church’s website and podcast.

The four sermons are listed below.

Gender Identity in Creation - Genesis 1:27

Gender Identity in Redemption - Galatians 3:28

Gender Roles in the Family - Genesis 2:20-24

Gender Roles in the Church - 1 Timothy 2:12

The introduction to the sermon on 1 Timothy 2:12 is an adaptation of an article that appears in the most recent issue of the Journal for Biblical Manhood & Womanhood (which I noted yesterday). If you would like to read that article, you can order the journal here.

A Primer on Men and Women—the Gender Issue

C Michael Patton @ www.reclaimingthemind.org provides a primer on the various positions in the gender debate. He outlines the various positions with adherents and responses:

Arguments for Complementarianism:

1. The Bible illustrates male leadership from the beginning of creation.

• Adam named the animals (Genesis 2:20).
• Adam named Eve (Genesis 2:23).
• God approached Adam first after the fall (Genesis 2:9).
• There were no women priests.
• The God-ordained rulers of Israel were male.
• Jesus’ apostles were all male.
• The bishops/presbyters/pastors were all male (1 Timothy 3:2; Titus. 1:6).

2. Eve was created as a completer. In order for one to be incomplete, he or she must lack something.

3. Paul constantly had to address women who were failing to understand the importance of their role as women or who were in outright rebellion against it.

4. The New Testament writers constantly had to address men who abused their role as leaders.

5. The curse involves women failing to appreciate their role (”you will want to control”) and men failing to dignify the role of women (”he will rule over you”—word “rule” speaks of rule by oppressive force).

Arguments for Egalitarianism

1. Patriarchalism (male domination) is a cultural phenomenon that God chose not to deal with, but to regulate as he also did with slavery.

2. Male leadership and domination is a result of the Fall that is reversed when we are restored in Christ.

3. The Bible has many examples of women who were leaders, teachers, and prophetesses who exercised authority over men. T

4. History has conclusively demonstrated that women have been very effective spiritual leaders and pastors.

5. Despite claims to the contrary, it is hard to see how stating that women are denied the opportunity of exercising spiritual headship over men does not demean the ontological value of women.

Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pt 4)

By Caleb Kolstad @ http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com

E. God gave the man the right to name the woman. Genesis 2:23, Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” The same Hebrew word is used throughout Gen 1-2, qara, meaning to call or to name. After the fall Adam “called” his wife a personal name. We read about this in Genesis 3:20, The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. In Genesis, the one who names a thing or a person has the authority or power to name. If you don’t believe me check out the following examples: Genesis 1:5, 8, 10; 2:19-20. In our country the parents (not the government, not the elder board, not the in-laws, thankfully); have the authority to name their own children. Genesis 4:25-26, And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, ‘God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.’ To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD. Genesis 5:3 records, When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. In unique situations, God changed the names of persons (for an example check out Genesis 17:5, 15). Dr. Grudem adds this helpful thought, “In every case the person who gives the name has authority over the person who receives the name.”

F. Adam was given the distinct role of representing the human race. Who sinned first according to Gen 3:6? It was Eve. Yet who is ultimately held responsible for the fall of the human race? Adam was held responsible. 1 Corinthians 15:22 , For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:45-46 records, Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. ⁴⁶ But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. Paul shares some wonderful truth corresponding to this point in Romans 5:12-21, Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned - ¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. ¹⁵ But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. ¹⁶ And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. ¹⁷ If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. ¹⁸ Therefore, as one trespass¹ led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness² leads to justification and life for all men. ¹⁹ For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. ²⁰ Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, ²¹ so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Man had a unique position as leader and head. Therefore God holds Adam responsible for the sin of all mankind. God comes looking for Adam, not Eve, in Genesis 3:9. But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” Being the “head” is a privilege that carries with it many unique responsibilities. One day all men will give a special account to God by virtue of their role. Adam was given the special role of representing the human race. By way of a footnote, the doctrine of federal representation is actually a very good reality because Jesus Christ came and did what we could never do. Jesus Christ is called in Scripture our 2^nd Adam. In Adam, the world fell. In Christ, the elect are saved. Our righteousness is imputed to our accounts through faith in Christ. The ground of our justification is not our faith but the perfect righteousness of Christ (see 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Romans 5). Let’s return now to the discussion at hand.

G. God named the human race “Man” not “Woman”. Genesis 5:1-2 notes, This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. ² Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. Genesis 5 records some of the events that happened before the fall. The Hebrew word translated “Man” is adam. The word man represents the Hebrew word adam in Gen 2:22, 23, 25; 3:8, 9, 12, and 20. I would encourage you to check these verses out for yourself. Dr. Grudem explains the significance of adam, “In the early chapters of Genesis, the connection with the man in distinction from the woman is a very clear pattern. God gave the human race a name which, like the English word man, can either mean a male human being or can refer to the human race in general.” Ray Ortlund Jr notes, “God’s naming of the race ‘man’ whispers male headship.”

Genesis 1-2 help us see the following observations:

A. God made Adam the central character.

B. God created Adam first (the creative order).

C. God formed the woman out of the man.

D. God created the woman for the man.

E. God gave the man the right to name the woman.

F. Adam was given the unique role of representing the human race.

G. God named the human race “Man” not “Women”.

Next time we will look at Genesis 3 and examine some of the consequences of the fall. Don’t forget in all this the first key we observed from the first chapter of Genesis. Men and women are equal in value, dignity, and personhood. Different gender defined roles do not undermine that central truth.

Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pt 3)

From Caleb Kolstad @http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com

#2 Men and Women have different roles as part of the creative order.

The 2nd part of that statement is absolutely essential. God ordained specific male and female roles before the fall. Some of these role differences are solely expressed in the context of marriage. For example, women are not called to submit to all men universally. Ephesians 5 does command women to submit to their husband’s headship though. In other words, men and women have different roles in marriage as part of the creative order. God created us equal yet different. Equal in essence but with different gender-defined roles.

Biblical womanhood in the words of one female author is, “God’s perfect design for women as revealed in the Bible.” Biblical manhood then is, “God’s perfect design for men as revealed in the Scriptures.” This subject is applicable to everyone. I appreciate the personal testimony of Carolyn Mahaney who wrote, “Although I have not received costly earthly treasures from my mom, she has given me a gift of priceless value, for she was faithful to pass on to me a legacy of biblical womanhood. Through her teaching and her example she taught me to aspire to these qualities that commend the gospel.” Men and women this should be our heart’s desire as well. That we lived our Christian lives in accordance to God’s perfect design as men or as women.

This section of my blog is dedicated to answering the following question: In what ways do we see Adam’s “headship” on display before the fall of man in Genesis 3? Put another way, did God design Adam to be the leader of his household before the fall or did Adam usurp that role as a result of the fall? I believe the evidence in Genesis 1-2 proves that God designed Adam to lovingly lead his wife before the fall (Wayne Grudem’s book was very helpful in summarizing these reasons. I used his book a lot during this section).

A. God made Adam the central human character. In Genesis 2 the actions and events revolve around Adam. I would encourage you to read the chapter for yourself and see if this is true. Adam first receives revelation from God in v. 16. The animals are brought before Adam to name in vv. 19-20. The woman is made from the man (not vice versa) in v. 22. The woman is made for the man in v. 18 and in v. 22. With that said, “From the man, for the man is not a sexist statement. Man is allowed to name the female (v. 23) and not vice versa. We’ll examine some of these points more closely in a little bit. In Genesis 1-3, Adam is clearly the central human character.

B. God created Adam first- (the order). In your own Bibles follow the sequence in Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 2:18-23. In the words of one scholar, “The creation priority is not an incidental fact.” Scripture helps us to interpret Scripture. Sometimes information in other passages of Scripture is clearer. Paul, wrote some inspired words in 1 Timothy 2:12-15, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve; ¹⁴ and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. ¹⁵ Yet she will be saved through childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” We’ll come back to this passage of Scripture at another time but suffice to say Paul understood there was significance in the creative order of God. The New Testament uses that fact to support the unique role of man as leader and primary teacher in the church (more to come on that passage).

C. God formed the woman out of the man. How did God create Adam? Genesis 2:7 says, then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. How was the woman fashioned? Genesis 2:21, So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The doctrine of headship and submission is actually rooted in the 2^nd chapter of Genesis. Again let’s quickly note a New Testament passage that provides a little commentary on this matter. 1 Corinthians 11:7-9, ^“For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. ⁹ Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”

D. God created the woman for the man. Verse 9 of 1 Corinthians 11 makes this point rather clearly. God created man innocent and He created Him in the image of God. Notice Genesis 2:18; “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” Genesis 2:22 says, “And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” Before you get big headed over these verses men remember something very important. God is totally self-sufficient! Adam was the man’s man of all men and he NEEDED something (better said someone) to complete him. We are not self-sufficient. That reality should humble us (we are not big shots) and it should encourage us (God provided man with an amazing and wonderful gift).

The noun “helper” in Gen 2:18 is the Hebrew word ezer. This word means support or aid. This is not a belittling role! After all, God is described as a help to his people (Psalm 54:4, 121), and the Holy Spirit is called our Helper in Jn. 14:16, 26. Woman was to be man’s helper. The Hebrew term for suitable to him (kenegdo) literally means “like him” or “corresponding to him.” Eve was Adam’s counterpart not his inferior! Sort of like R2D2 was C3PO’s counterpart in the movie Star Wars. Anyways, Eve perfectly complemented Adam. Her differences helped to complete Adam. Don’t forget now, our God-ordained roles do not in and of themselves determine our value and worth. Much more will be said concerning this as well. (TO BE CONTINUED)

Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pt 2)

By Caleb Kolstad @ http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com

How can we know what our God ordained roles and responsibilities ought to be? Before we answer that we need to look at few key issues.

The 1st Key Issue that we need to get is: Men and Women are equal in Value, Dignity & Personhood.

That is an absolutely foundational statement. I believe it is an important statement primarily because it accurately reflects the Word of God. The first book of Moses and the first book of the Bible is Genesis. Genesis 1:27-28 records, God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. ²⁸ And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

Who was created in the image of God? Was it just man? No, it was man and woman. What does it mean then to bear God’s image? At the very least it means we humans are relational, we have a spirit (eternal soul), we experience emotions, we have a moral conscience, we know and can worship God. Mankind was created with a will, with a soul, and with an intellect. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that we are different from all the other created things. Men and women are unique and special in God’s sight. Redemptive history proves this is so. Did you know that in some ways humans represent God? The fall, has of course, tainted many of the aspects mentioned above. Because men and women are created in the image of God we believe we’re equal in value, dignity, and personhood. The world would be a lot better place if people believed this.

So who did God bless in Genesis 1:28? He blessed both Adam and Eve and commissioned them to serve Him as co-regents of the garden. Man was to have dominion over the other created things. Technically speaking though it’s not a man’s world or a woman’s world, it is God’s world.

Male dominance and male superiority is a direct result of sin (not part of God’s divine plan). Some countries abort females as lesser creations (like in China). According to one recent Fox News report, infanticide (and abortion) is responsible for 60 million girls missing in Asia alone. Wanda Franz said, “Abortion is claimed to help women; obviously in these cases, females are the direct victims, because women in these cultures are not valued.” Unbiblical thinking normally leads to unbiblical behavior. Male dominance has lead to many unbiblical decisions such as men justifying rape or polygamy; husbands acting as little dictators; women being told they can’t go to school or vote because their an inferior gender.

The secular feminist movement is a result of sin as well. Unbiblical reactions to unbiblical behavior is still sin in the eyes of our Creator. The radical feminist movement has actually tried to abolish the family (as we know it) and has promoted among many things, lesbianism. These women believe the institution of marriage holds women in bondage. The evangelical feminist movement has tried to abolish any role differences between men and women in the home and in the church. We’ll talk more about this issue later on in our study. As complementarians we must be careful that we do not counter-react to all this folly with additional folly (and thus overreact and possibly sin).

One of the implications of Gen. 1:27 is that men and women are equally important & valuable to God. Our God-designed differences never imply that men are superior to women (or vice versa). We’re equals! Galatians 3:28-29 says, ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. This verse is often misapplied but it does confirm our first Key: men and women are equal in value and dignity. God choose to create both males and females. He choose to redeem both men and women; He gives spiritual gifts to both men and women; He gives unique talents to both men and women; He loves both men and women. The starting point is not to discuss all of our differences as men and women but to express our equality in the image of God (the same is true with race issues by the way).

One Para church organization provided a short explanation as to how this understanding should flesh itself out in our marriages: “In a marriage lived according to these truths, the love between husband and wife will show itself in listening to each other’s viewpoints, valuing each other’s gifts, wisdom and desires, honoring one another in public and in private, and always seeking to bring benefit, not harm, to one another.” Let us never forget that men and women are equal in value, dignity, and personhood.

This leads us into the 2nd Chapter of Genesis quite well. One author has rightly commented, “We cannot understand the gender debate among Bible-believing Christians without grasping this chapter’s significance.” Gen 2:18-25 is the counterpart of Gen 1:27-28. When one accurately interprets Genesis 2 a second key observation can be made: #2 Men and Women have different roles as part of the creative order. (to be continued)

Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (pt 1)

by Caleb Kolstad @http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com

I have been taking our young marrieds/singles class through a series on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. Because things have been quiet around here i will post these notes here on E.T.

Besides the Word of God, I am going to be using many different resources. Namely, Wayne Grudem’s “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood.” Grudem’s “Evangelical Feminism & Biblical Truth.” Srauch’s “Equal-Yet-Different.” Duncan’s “Women’s Ministry in the Local Church.” MacArthur’s “Different by Design” to name a few. Before we jump into this Bible study we need to ask an important WHY question. WHY should we invest time on this particular subject? Why spend one or two quarters going over biblical manhood and womanhood? Here are a few answers right upfront (in no particular order):

#1. Because this subject is the source of much debate among the Christian community today.

An ongoing debate between Biblical complementarians & Evangelical feminists (egalitarians) continues to wage. Let me briefly define those seminary level descriptions for you. Complementarians teach that God created men and women as equals yet with different gender-defined roles. In short they say, men and women are fully equal in personhood, dignity, and worth but that God designed men and women to function in different roles (which in no way negates the later statement). Egalitarians teach that God created men and women as equals with no distinct role differences. In short, they believe that true equality requires equal ministry opportunities for both sexes. Egalitarians can also be referred to as evangelical feminists. I will refer to them using both titles.

Our church believes the Bible supports a complementarian view in regards to gender roles in the church and home. Much, much more will be said to support this position in the weeks to come. All that to say, this is often a hot button topic of discussion in Christian schools, churches, seminaries, and even in some Christian homes. I believe if you survey the Christian landscape you’ll agree this topic is both relevant and important.

So why should we invest time on this particular subject? #1. Because this subject is the source of much debate among the Christian community today and is an important issue for us to understand.

#2. Because the Bible addresses this subject in a number of different passages.

True Christians, in all places and in all times, have treasured the Bible because it truly is God’s Word. As Christians we acknowledge the authority of God over our lives. One of the ways we submit ourselves to Christ’s Lordship is by humbling ourselves before the Word of God. God’s revealed will for our lives is preserved for us in One Book and in one Book alone (2 Peter 1:3). The Bible is a lamp onto our feet and a light unto our path (Psalm 119). God expects that we diligently search out the Scriptures and that we seek to understand and apply it to our own lives (Acts 17:11). The Bible addresses this topic in both the Old and New Testaments so it’s important we study it and that we seek to apply it’s truths to our lives as well. Some of the key passages include Genesis 1-3, Ephesians 5, Titus 2, 1 Corinthians 7, Galatians 3:28, and 1 Corinthians 14.

Which leads us to #3: Because this teaching personally affects all of us in many different ways.

To make sense of this point, check out the Wayne Grudem’s attachment at the end of this handout. Much more will be said concerning this subject so please come this summer as often as you can. If you review the chart you’ll see how this mindset affects one’s behavior in many different ways. We probably won’t find ourselves on the extreme edges but we may uncover some aspects where we’ve drifted away from the Biblical center.

#4. Because teaching on this subject is normally full of heat but often very short on light.

I will try my best to clearly distinguish for you what the Bible teaches and what my personal opinions are. I will try and let you know what other people’s opinions are as well. Let’s be straightforward on this: Human opinions are normally take or leave it type things (E.G. How to best care for your lawn; Whether its wisest to buy a new car or to buy used cars; whether or not Pete Rose should be admitted into the Hall of Fame; Whether or not you should try and breast feed or use a baby formula; Whether or not one should vote for a Mormon politician, etc, etc). Some opinions are helpful and wise while others are just opinions. If we stay close to what the Scriptures teach concerning this topic we’ll be right on track.

I think it’s important for all of us to:

(A) Know what the key passages of Scripture are regarding this topic.

(B) Understand what the passages say.

(C) Meditate on how that understanding should affect our lives.

(D) By God’s grace, seek to implement change in our lives.

After we finish this series you should be able to answer the following questions: What are the biblical roles and responsibilities for both Christian men and Christian women? Is it permissible to ordain a female pastor? Can a woman teach or preach to other men? Other children? ladies? Why or why not? Were the author’s of Scripture ever sexist? Did Jesus contradict the prophets or the apostles in regards to this topic? How can we avoid the unbiblical extremes that often dominate this discussion? What does Biblical manhood really entail? What does Biblical womanhood mean? Why does this subject matter so much to God?

Evangelical Same-Sex Marriages?

Moore to the Point A Commentary by Russell D. Moore @ http://henryinstitute.org

9 Marks Ministries has posted the audio from a roundtable conversation between Mark Dever, C.J. Mahaney, Randy Stinson, and me at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. in November. As the blurb from the website advertises, I wonder aloud here whether most evangelical Christians are living in same-sex marriages and Mahaney challenges Dever to give more attention to gender issues than he does now. You can listen to the conversation here. Speaking of gender conversation, the audio is also up from the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood's "Different by Design" conference in Minneapolis this past February. At this conference, Ligon Duncan and I talked about gender matters and then fielded questions from the audience. Dr. Duncan's address is thoughtful and dynamic, and will fuel some needed conversation on these issues. You can access these talks here.

The Extraordinary Value of Women (I)

By Tim Challies @ http://www.challies.com

A few days ago I received an interesting email from a reader of this site. She had read an older article of mine in which I affirmed the Bible's position about the extraordinary value of women. While she was grateful that I had written such an article, she shared some of her struggles with distinguishing between differing roles and differing value. She wrote "No matter how I push my body to its limits, and no matter how much endurance I have to exhibit, God will always consider me a 'weaker vessel.' Galatians 3:21 seems to indicate that men and women are of equal value, but it's very difficult to distinguish between a lower ROLE and a lower VALUE. It's an uphill battle for me. God told me to embrace what I cannot change."

I thought I would try to address her misgivings and struggles over the next couple of days. Today I will post an article based on the one I first posted a couple of years ago. Tomorrow I'll discuss her questions more specifically.

I think it is important to affirm that there is no system of religion that exalts women higher than biblical Christianity. That is quite a claim, I realize, but one that can be easily proven by examining Scripture and comparing what Scripture says about women to the way they are treated by other religions or by those who adhere to no religion. Those who think the Bible is unfair to women and somehow feel they need to raise the status of women always end up damaging women. The result of decades of feminism testifies to this truth for womanhood has suffered terribly in our society. More on this soon.

Some time ago a person sent a question to the Reformed Baptist mailing list, of which I am a member. He recounted that he was teaching eighth graders and one young lady asked a question about Adam and Eve. This girl noted that after Adam named all of the animals and saw how they were paired, he realized that there was no counterpart to him. And so God created Eve as a helper to Adam. It seems, suggested the girl, that God created Eve only to serve as a partner to Adam in allowing him to procreate. It is almost as if women were an afterthought in God's mind. So why didn't God create man and woman together as He had done with the animals? Why did He introduce Eve in such a way that she seems primarily to serve her man?

Turning to Genesis 1:27 we see that "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." The next verse reads, "And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living things that moves on the earth." It must be noted that God created both male and female in His image, and that He did so before He actually called either into being. In reality, then, men and women were created concurrently for they are inseparable in their God-given role of multiplying and subduing the earth. God could hardly create only a man and command him to be fruitful and multiply!

One astute member of the mailing list replied that this girl has probably created in her mind a romanticized version of the events leading to the creation of Eve. In Genesis 2:20 we read that "The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him." Previously, in verse 18, God has already said, "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make a helper fit for him." It makes a nice story to believe that Adam named all of the animals and then, noting that there was no helper suitable for him, felt loneliness. The Bible, though, does not state this. Scripture tells us that it was God, not Adam, who noted "that it was not good that the man should be alone." We have no basis to assume that Adam was in any way lonely or that he felt any insufficiency. Adam lived in a perfect world and had perfect communion with God. Surely he did not feel any sense of loneliness. The person concluded, as I have, that Adam did not need Eve to fill some deep-rooted emptiness in his life, but that he needed a wife to fulfill his God-given mandate. Thus woman was not created to fill a social or sexual need in Adam, but to complete the Lord's purpose for humans. Eve was not needed to complete Adam, but to complete God's command to Adam.

So let's return to my claim that the Bible regards women in a way that is higher than other religions. The reason for this is obvious: the God who created us male and female, also prescribes our roles. As our Creator, He knows the reason He made us and knows how we can best live our lives. Only the Bible outlines the Creator's instruction to His creatures. We must understand that while God affirms equal worth, He speaks of differing roles. For example, women have the unique role and privilege of bearing children. Because they are physically weaker than men they have a need for support and protection, and this is a need God has commanded husbands to fill. God also establishes proper order in the family by assigning to men the job of headship in home and church.

One of the best (and most succinct) summaries of Scripture's position on women comes from the introduction to John MacArthur's book, Twelve Extraordinary Women. In this book MacArthur makes several important points about women, some of which I am borrowing here.

Special Honor - While recognizing role distinctions, the Bible sets women apart for special honor. A husband is commanded to live sacrificially and to value his wife's life higher than his own. Women are highly valued by God and are to receive this same value from men.

Due Distinction - The biblical accounts of the great men of the Old Testament consistently give distinction to their wives. Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel are only a few examples of women who play prominent roles in Scripture. Other women who are integral to the Bible are Eve, Miriam, Deborah and Ruth. We even find Wisdom personified as woman and the church being called the bride of Christ. God does not shy away from giving credit to women of faith and to using metaphors that require female imagery.

Religious Equality - Women were never excluded from the social and religious life in either the Old or New Testaments. Women participated in feasts and times of public worship. They were not required to be silent or to be hidden from sight behind veils. Jesus' group of disciples included several women, a practice almost unknown at the time. In my repeated readings of Acts I have seen time and again that women are given constant mention among the first converts and among those who played integral roles in the early church. One could almost argue that God goes out of His way to point to the importance of women in these situations.

The biblical teaching on the value of women stands in stark contrast to that of other religions, and especially religions of that day. Women in pagan societies were often treated with little more dignity than animals. Many systems of religion and philosophy taught that women were inherently inferior to men, a claim that is clearly revoked in Scripture. Pagan religion, while it may have paid homage to female deities, devalued women by creating elaborate rituals which required sacred prostitutes. These religions, while supposedly honoring women, in reality debased them, much as feminism does in our day.

MacArthur concludes (read this carefully for it is of utmost importance!) that "Wherever the gospel has spread, the social, legal and spiritual status of women has, as a rule, been elevated. When the gospel has been eclipsed (whether by repression, false religion, secularism, humanistic philosophy, or spiritual decay within the church), the status of women has declined accordingly." Secular efforts to increase the status of women have largely failed, as we have seen with the feminist movement of the twentieth century. This movement sought to elevate the status of women, but did so at the cost of their femininity, seeking to rob women of what makes them so distinctive. The whole message of the feminist agenda is that there is nothing all that extraordinary about women, for they are just like men. The Bible, though, tells a different story. MacArthur states that "[W]henever the Bible expressly talks about the marks of an excellent women, the stress is always on feminine virtue. The most significant women in Scripture were influential not because of their careers, but because of their character. The message these women collectively give is not about "gender equality"; it is about true feminine excellence. And this is always exemplified in moral and spiritual qualities rather than by social standing, wealth or physical appearance."

The Bible continually affirms that women are extraordinary. Women have value and worth that is in every way equal to men. Women are no mere afterthought, but are an integral and equal part of God's design for human beings. The Bible is unique in that it honors women as women, exalting them for their femininity, and encouraging them to seek honor in a uniquely feminine and God-glorifying way.

Pastors Are Not Elders: An Egalitarian Suggestion?

By James M. Hamilton Jr.

Assistant Professor of Biblical Studies: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Houston Park Place Campus

At the recent ETS meetings (November 2006) Dr. Harold Hoehner presented a paper asking, “Can a Woman Be a Pastor-Teacher?” Dr. Hoehner argued that Ephesians 4:11 indicates that “pastor-teacher” is a spiritual gift and not an office in the church. This is consistent with what he had earlier written in his commentary on Ephesians. In the commentary he writes,

“Some may question the validity of women pastors or pastor-teachers, but it must be remembered that these are gifts and not offices. Surely, women who pastor-shepherd among women should cause no problem at all (Titus 2:3–4). But in fact, Priscilla, along with Aquila, taught Apollos the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:25–26) which would indicate that a woman may not be limited to teaching only women” (Ephesians, 546).

It is shocking to me that Dr. Hoehner here expressly affirms that women can do what Paul expressly forbids them from doing in 1 Timothy 2:12. On the basis of an example recorded in the narrative of Acts, Dr. Hoehner is prepared to overturn a direct apostolic prohibition.

Aside from the hermeneutical issue of reading the narrative in a way that contradicts an apostolic prohibition, is this example in the narrative even analogous to the situation Paul addresses in 1 Timothy 2:12? For all we know, this conversation with Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos happened only once, whereas Paul is surely addressing teaching that happens in the regular gathering of the congregation in 1 Timothy 2:12. The incident with Priscilla, Aquila, and Apollos happened in private, whereas Paul is addressing the public gathering of the assembly in 1 Timothy 2:12. Moreover, Luke doesn’t tell us who did the instructing in Acts 18:25–26. Priscilla’s husband may have done most—or even all—of the talking. Yet Dr. Hoehner takes this incident as evidence that “a women may not be limited to teaching only women.”

What’s more, the answer to the question posed by Dr. Hoehner’s paper (can a woman be a pastor-teacher?) is clearly yes!

There may be a word study fallacy in Dr. Hoehner’s interpretation, which seems to limit its consideration of “pastors” to the noun that means “shepherd” rather than also considering the related verbal forms that refer to the act of shepherding. If the verbal forms are considered, the texts that indicate that “elders” are “to shepherd” incline the interpretation away Dr. Hoehner’s conclusion. What I mean is this: Dr. Hoehner can only maintain that “pastor-teacher” is a spiritual gift and not an office if a pastor is not the same thing as an elder, since “elder” is an office in the church and not just a spiritual gift.

But are elders distinct from pastors? In Acts 20:17 Paul summons the “elders” of the church in Ephesus. He then tells them, “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God” in Acts 20:28. The word “overseers” can also be rendered “bishops,” and the infinitive “to shepherd” is the verbal form of the noun translated “pastor.” Thus, in Acts 20, Paul tells the “elders” that they are “bishops/overseers,” and he tells them that they are “to pastor.”

Similarly, in 1 Peter 5:1–2, Peter exhorts the “elders” that they are to “shepherd the flock of God” by “exercising oversight.” Here again, an elder is to do what a shepherd (pastor) does, shepherd, and he is to do what an overseer does, exercise oversight.

Dr. Hoehner’s novel conclusion that “pastor-teacher” is a spiritual gift to the exclusion of it being an office can only be maintained by committing what looks like a word study fallacy of insisting that the particular noun, “pastor,” is not related to the cognate verbal forms “to pastor” which are used to describe what elders are to do.

The suggestion that “a women may not be limited to teaching only women” with the citation of the incident where Priscilla and Aquila take Apollos aside is standard egalitarian fare. Could this point to a drift toward the egalitarian position? Or if, as Dr. Hoehner argues, a woman can be a pastor, and if women are not “limited to teaching only women” is the slide toward egalitarianism already complete?

Gender Confusion in the Kindergarten?

By Albert Mohler

Some cultural developments represent massive shifts in consciousness and worldview. These developments can only be explained by a dramatic reshaping of our moral sense and understanding of basic reality.

Such is the case with news coming from both coasts indicating that "transgendered children" are now enrolled in kindergarten programs.

From The Miami Herald:

One little girl entering Broward County kindergarten this fall is actually a boy.

Few will know this genetic truth, because the 5-year-old's parents and school administrators have agreed that it's in his best interest to blend in as a female.

Mental health professionals have diagnosed Pat -- not his real name -- with gender dysphoria, a condition in which a person believes that he or she is the opposite gender. After two years of examination, they have determined that he is not simply effeminate or going through a phase.

More:

The soon-to-be kindergartner looks quite feminine, cartwheeling around the yard and playing with dolls. Pat says he hates his penis, and he refuses to wear boys' clothing.

He and his three older siblings -- two girls and a boy -- live in a middle-class Broward County neighborhood with their father, an attorney, and their mother, who has a master's degree in counseling.

Pat's parents had never heard of gender dysphoria until they took their child for treatment. He was insisting that he was a girl, and often tried to hide his penis between his legs.

From The San Francisco Chronicle:

Park Day School is throwing out gender boundaries.

Teachers at the private Oakland elementary school have stopped asking the children to line up according to sex when walking to and from class. They now let boys play girls and girls play boys in skits. And there's a unisex bathroom.

Admissions director Flo Hodes is even a little apologetic that she still balances classes by gender.

Park Day's gender-neutral metamorphosis happened over the past few years, as applications trickled in for kindergartners who didn't fit on either side of the gender line. One girl enrolled as a boy, and there were other children who didn't dress or act in gender-typical ways. Last year the school hired a consultant to help the staff accommodate these new students.

"We had to ask ourselves, what is gender for young children?" Hodes said. "It's coming up more and more."

Park Day's staff members are among a growing number of educators and parents who are acknowledging gender variance in very young children. Aurora School, another private elementary school in Oakland, also is seeing children who are "gender fluid" and hired a clinical psychologist to conduct staff training.

Let's be honest here -- these stories represent a breathtaking shift in the way human beings view sex, sexuality, and gender. The whole transgender issue, now a major focus of public interest, is proof of this. But the fact that these two articles deal with "transgender children" diagnosed with "gender dysphoria" at the age of 5 represents something altogether more shocking. "Gender fluid" children in kindergarten?

The urgent question is this: What worldview makes such a proposal plausible? The assumption that gender is a fluid category is rooted in the belief that gender is a socially constructed reality, not necessarily related to biology and anatomy -- a central tenet of postmodern theory. The idea that the self is autonomous and must serve its own impulses and sense of reality is rooted in the ethos of autonomous individualism that now dominates in our culture. The idea that this self bears a moral duty to express itself without external repression is rooted in the therapeutic assumptions of modern society.

The fact that this set of assumptions is now directed to five-year-olds is a revolution in itself -- and so is the expectation that kindergarten programs must accommodate such developments. As one of the "authorities" cited in the reports argued, five-year-olds need "a place where children can express what they want to." She was not talking about art, you understand.

Christians must look to persons struggling with what the therapeutic community now calls "gender dysphoria" with genuine compassion. This has to be an excruciating struggle. Nevertheless, we cannot accept the assumptions that support this concept of gender, sex, and the self. These assumptions are antithetical to the biblical worldview, and can only be explained by a deep rejection of God's gift of sex and gender -- a gift that is for His glory and for our good.

"Transgender children" in kindergarten? We can only wonder what can come next. The logic cannot stop at age five.