To join ongoing discussion of this and other topics please visithttp://www.equalitycentral.com/forum/
Points 1-10 in italics are from Bruce Ware’s Complementarian Reading of Genesis.
Rebuttal provided by Don Johnson.
1. The order of creation, with the man created first, indicates God’s design of male headship in the male/female relationship (Gen 2; 1 Tim 2:13).
Not headship, which implies an ongoing role and so assumes the non-egal argument, but head, let’s be more Biblical in our terms.
Yes, the man was the head/source of the woman in the garden.
By referencing 1 Tim 2:13 he assumes he knows what “For” means, but it might in contrast mean that this was part of the teaching that is being repudiated by what Paul says. We simply do not know enough to know what “For” means in this case. Timothy knew, the word of God went forth and succeeded in its immediate goal and we are left not sure what it was. There was a large shared context between Paul and Timothy, Paul’s spiritual son, so in communicating with him Paul would know that Timothy would understand, but we are not Timothy, we are in the place of looking over Timothy’s shoulder but not sharing the large shared context. Humbleness is called for.
2. The means of the woman’s creation as “out of” or “from” the man bears testimony also to the headship of the male in the relationship (Gen 2:23; 1 Cor 11:8 ).
 
Again, man was the head/source of the woman, as all men today are born from women, as Paul points out, and all come from God.
3. While both man and woman are fully the image of God (Gen 1:26-28), yet the woman’s humanity as “image of God” is established as she comes from the man. Adam names her “isha” (woman) because she was “taken out of ish (man)” (Gen 2:23; cf. 5:3).
Whew on the first sentence, both the man and the woman are in the image of God, to reduce the woman in any way leads to error.
Both man and women are in the image of God and when saved each can reveal the glory of God.
The man did not name her when he called her woman, both of their God-given names were Adam Gen 5:2 which is often ignored.
Calling someone woman is saying that she is a member of the group of female humans. Isha is the feminine form of ish, she is a female man, it is a simple wordplay.
He later did name her Eve, but this was a result of the fall and indicates his rule over her.
4. The woman was created for the man’s sake or to be Adam’s helper (Gen 2:18, 20).
True. Or the man’s help. The man needed help, it was NOT GOOD that he was alone, after the woman was formed it was VERY GOOD.
Someone being a helper or help implies that the other needs help and the help is willing to help.
5. Man (not woman) was given God’s moral commandment in the garden; and woman learned God’s moral command from the man (Gen 2:16-17).
Both were given the commandments about what they could eat in Gen 1. In Gen 2 the man hears ANOTHER way of stating it, as both commands need to be consistent. It is possible that the woman learned from the man, but there are other possibilities, including God told her directly what she reports.
6. Man named the woman both before and after the entrance of sin (Gen 2:19-20, 23; 3:20).
This is false. God uses the term woman in the previous verse and in any case woman is not a name nor is the term shem/name used.
7. Satan approached the woman (not the man) in the temptation, usurping God’s design of male-headship (Gen 3; 1 Tim 2:14).
The serpent approached the woman, but the man was right there with her and did the first sin by NOT protecting/guarding the garden and contents.
Nowhere is there any rebuke of the man, the woman or even the serpent for usurping the man’s supposed role, this is just a man-made idea.
8. Although the woman sinned first, God comes to the man first, holding him (not her) primarily responsible for their sin (Gen 3:8-9; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 15:22).
Again false, the man sinned first by not protecting the garden, many miss this.
9. The curses on the man and woman indicate the fundamental purposes for which each was created, respectively (Gen 3:16-19).
False, there are no curses on the man nor on the woman and it is sloppy to say so. There is a curse on the serpent as a result of the serpent’s sins and on the land as a result of the man’s sins. There is no curse as a result of the woman’s sins. It is important to see there is a ranking of the sinners from bad to worse of woman, man, serpent. The woman was deceived, the man did it deliberately and the serpent tempted others to sin.
10. The Trinity’s equality and distinction of Persons is mirrored in male-female equality and distinction (1 Cor 11:3).
This is the wrong interpretation of 1 Cor 11, IMO. I see this as discussing order of existance.
To join ongoing discussion of this and other topics please visithttp://www.equalitycentral.com/forum/
Recent Comments