Man & Woman A Study of Biblical Roles by Michael Lewis

This brief review is to bring to the attention of readers the fact that there are several statements, especially in chapter 1, which are either overstated or understated, or which lack the necessary qualifiers. This may cause the reader to come to some invalid conclusions. This problem is unfortunate since the book becomes more precise [and therefore accurate] in subsequent chapters and overall is a good book on a controversial subject. We must not follow the example of the churches--that pick and choose what parts of the Bible they will emphasize and what parts they will omit--by picking sentences out of chapter 1 of this book and ignoring the rest of it and plain Scriptural statements.

Page 14 paragraph 2, "their spiritual makeup is the same". This is not entirely true since Eve was deceived by the propaganda of the serpent whereas Adam was not. This tendency is stated by Paul in 1 Tim. 2:11-14 as one of the reasons why sisters are not to teach the brethren.

On page 15 paragraph 3, this phrase is changed to "equal spiritual status" which is not qualified properly until chapter 2, p. 22 where he defines what he means by the phrase by adding the qualifying words "that is, an equal opportunity to respond to the Word and be saved". [While Bro. Michael makes a similar point on page 21 "embracing an equality of status, an equal capacity to receive His Word and an equality of opportunity to come to a common salvation" this qualifying prepositional phrase is not quite as clear as the one on page 22 cited above.] However, it is doing a great disservice to the author for brothers or sisters to hijack the wording of chapter 1--which is some cases lacks the necessary qualifiers provided in this review--to suggest that Bro Michael teaches that brothers and sisters are equal in the ecclesia as far as teaching roles are concerned. If you read the whole book it is clearly the very opposite.

On page 16 paragraph 2, the book states " ...Adam's authority regarding Eve was independent of the curse" but Genesis 3:16 adds the words "and he shall rule over thee" which obviously happened after the fall. I would add the qualifier "most of" in front of the word "Adam's" above. This is in agreement with what the author says on page 17: "We understand that in the curse the Lord is imposing on creation the hierarchy that should have been accepted voluntarily...".

On page 17 the final paragraph, Bro. Michael says, "In the curse God decreed that the man would always be in the ascendancy". The word "always" should be deleted since this will not generally be the case in the future, and the curse will not continue into the Millennium.

Page 19 para 2, "The source of Adam and Eve's sin lay in Eve believing the serpent's false interpretation..." The words "Adam and" should be deleted since Adam was not deceived.

In the next paragraph Bro. Michael says, "Adam saw through the argument but evidently Eve did not". The word evidently must be deleted since scripture says Eve was deceived. There is no maybe about it.

In commenting on the reason why Adam partook, Bro. Michael says "It had nothing to do with exerting power or force because Eve had none to exert. It is speculation but in Elpis Israel Bro. Thomas says "Adam sinned in consequence of listening to Eve's silvery discourse. No temptation has proved more irresistible to the flesh than the enticing words of woman's lips... 'Because' said the Lord God, 'thou hast harkened to the voice of thy wife...' After all she now possessed the knowledge of evil as a result of partaking of the forbidden fruit. See also Elpis Israel page 84.

Bro. Michael then goes on to say, "neither had it anything to do with persuasion because Adam was not deceived". This logic does not follow since persuasion does not have to lead to being deceived. Sin occurs when we allow the temptation [i.e. persuasion] to entice us so that lust conceives.

On page 20 last paragraph, in commenting on the words 'the woman being deceived'; says Paul "did not say that all woman are deceived... We must not invent a general rule which the Scriptures do not give...since in the perception of Truth some women are far ahead of many men". Most of this is true. But while it is not a general rule it is probably a common rule and would seem to be behind the Scriptural reason why women are not allowed to teach men. It is common knowledge that most women are deceived more easily than men by specious reasoning. See Godliness with Contentment page 58.

Page 57, paragraph 1. "All the saints in the Kingdom will have had their earliest training at the hands of a woman..." The contextual implication is that this is spiritual training. This needs to be qualified because after the Gentiles were included in the gospel net it would be generally untrue initially of most Gentiles.

Page 69 second paragraph, in commenting on 1 Tim. 2:15, "The reference to childbearing in verse 15, which is simple shorthand for the secondary role of women". This is very poor reasoning.

Page 86 second paragraph. "Doubtless there were some amongst the woman who were equally capable [i.e. to be Apostles], but it was not to be". This is quite a silly statement since much of the work that Apostles were required to do could not have been performed by sisters, to say nothing of the future when the Apostles will sit on the twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28).

With the qualifications noted above, this book has a very important place--in our confused society with its feminist and chauvinistic imbalances--in defining the role of brothers and sisters. The churches are not facing up to this problem with the result that they are giving equal place to women by ordination of women priests and so on. Christadelphia faces the same problem of sisters wishing to usurp the role of brothers. We see it already in some radical sisters refusing to wear head coverings, reading and speaking on the platform, and in sisters trying to get on arranging committees. It is this reviewer's considered view that it already is a major issue and one which will increase in the future. If you look for the facts you will find that this is the reason why this book was written: to correct or at least forestall this alarming problem in our midst. Therefore it should be on the required reading list of all young people and those older ones who cannot defend adequately the Scripturally defined role of both sexes.

There are a number of associated issues, which are caused primarily by a lack of application of the Scriptural principles, that are covered in this book.

Aleck Crawford, February 14, 2005