The Tennant Authority Structure

A critique of Bnonn Tennant’s approach to Genesis 3.

Readership: Christians
Theme: Headship
Author’s Note: Coauthored by Lexet and Jack.
Length: 2,000 words
Reading Time: 11 minutes

Announcement

I’ve opened a new account at Substack. You can check it out here:

https://lexet.substack.com/

---

Bnonn Tennant’s Viewpoints

I’ve been really busy so I have been sitting on this for a while, but a long time ago on their Faceb00k page, It’s Good To Be A Man went on a spree of posting bizarre interpretations of scripture. They then deleted posts / comments, and started blocking anyone who raised any questions.

Here’s a clip of one such interaction between Bnonn Tennant and a commenter on their Faceb00k IGTBAM ministry page…

In the above interchange, the commenter wrote,

“Sin is such a twisting device; it seeks us to rule over our wife like we should rule over sin, and treat sin patiently and lovingly as we should be treating our wife.”

The focus of his comment is on how we approach sin, with the marital relationship being used as a comparative analogy. The commenter is clearly a churchianized complementarian, as there is a strong negative connotation with “rule” here, only as it applies to the husband ruling over the wife (in contradiction to Genesis 3:16, which states that husbands shall rule over their wives). But yes, sin is twisting. If we correct this bias error, then the sentiment behind the commenter’s statement infers that he was trying to say,

“Sin is such a twisting device; it seeks us to oppress our wives while we treat sin patiently and lovingly, when instead, we should be ruling over sin while we are being patient and loving with our wives.”

While wordy, and filled with churchian presuppositions, the intent of the comment was benign, and something most would agree with on a superficial level. That wasn’t good enough for Bnonn. In response, Bnonn picked out the above commenter as the “culprit”, and unleashed an unprovoked tirade, stating that the commenter’s critiques are random and nonsensical.

Bnonn Tennant responded,

“It looks like you’re conflating “treating” and “ruling” by reading an entire theology of how to deal with various “subjects” into Genesis 3:16; 4:7. As a result, you’re forced to see “but he will rule over you” as something new and cursed that God has added to federal headship, rather than a simple statement of contrast between Eve’s cursed desire and the good rulership that God already established in the created order.

If that’s so, you’re reading something into Genesis that is simply not there. We can know that, at least, from the many other passages that speak of the rulership of a man over his wife: that he is to her as the Lord Jesus is to the congregation; i.e. her lord. [Citation of 1 Peter 3:1-8] The bible doesn’t call the husband the leader of his wife, it calls him the head and the lord of his wife.”

Those of us who are well read on Dalrock can get the point, but why all the vitriol towards a reader who is starting to “get it”?

What does Bnonn Tennant believe?

It’s clear from his comment that Tennant subscribes to Federal Headship (FH). Personally, I have a negative opinion of FH, but I will not go into that here. Readers who are familiar with FH might comment about how this influences his argument.

According to this dialogue, Bnonn’s responses communicate his beliefs to be the following:

1. Male rulership, according to Genesis 3:16, is not an indication of a curse.
2. The nature of male rulership did not change as a result of the fall.
3. The statement, “he will rule over you”, poses a contrast between Eve’s cursed desire, and the “good rulership” that God had already established.
4. That marital headship is a perfect analogy to the relationship between Christ and the Church.

On point 1, Tennant is going overboard in his defense of headship. It is true that there was headship pre-fall. It is true that Adam had authority over Eve. However, “he will rule over you” is given in the same pronouncement as sorrow, pain in childbirth, and increased desire, so it is hard to penalize someone for thinking that it is not somehow part of the curse.

With point 2, the glaring problem is that there is effectively no basis for saying that improper rulership over a woman is not a product of the fall. Ephesians 5:25-29 encourages husbands to love their wife with the implication that in our fallen world, our default is to be harsh in “ruling over” our wives.

Third, we have a logical conundrum here. The woman is placed at enmity with her husband — she will strive for his power. Does it make sense that strife within a marital relationship would be taken in stride, as opposed to causing a reaction (i.e. passivity on one end, harshness on the other)?

On the last point, the likeness between Christ and the Church and Husbands and Wives is an analogous ontology to be regarded as an ideal for us to work towards. Unfortunately, it is not the real thing, and it will never be so because we are in a fallen world and in a state of sin. While we hope to grow in our sanctification, we will never be perfect. But instead of holding this up as a model to aspire to, Tennant appears to be laying this down as a law comparable to the 10 Commandments; one that must be obeyed or else!

Douglas Wilson

Tennant and Foster are not the only guys who are confused about Genesis 3:16. Douglas Wilson holds a very similar interpretation of this passage, which might explain why they often cite his work on this and many other topics. If readers are interested, Wilson v. Genesis 3:16 (2020/9/26) from Full Metal Patriarchy recounts a conversation he had with Douglas Wilson over his ever changing interpretations of this scripture.

A Double Minded Man

Hold on! Just when we think we’ve understood Tennant’s stance, a little more reading from his blog shows that he is more confused than we might’ve believed!

In the series he linked to at the end of his comment on FB, Tennant contradicts the stance he took on FB by admitting that man’s rule is not always good. In the sixth post in this series, he writes,

“The problem since the fall has been that men, by nature, cannot represent God. In our natural state we are enemies of God; we stalwartly refuse to rule on his behalf; we will always choose to rule for ourselves instead. We choose injustice over justice, vice over virtue, divisiveness over shalom — because every thought and inclination of our hearts is only, always, toward evil (Genesis 6:5; 8:21; Jeremiah 17:9).”

In the Habit of Goring (Bnonn Tennant): What is the kingdom of God? Part 6: how God is retaking Adam’s kingdom from Satan (2017/3/29)

Of course, he is right about this. The Bible declares that man’s nature is corrupt in many other verses in addition to those cited by Tennant. (See Job 14:1-6; Psalm 14:1-3; Isaiah 53:6; Isaiah 59:7-15; Isaiah 64:6-7; Romans 3:10-20; Romans 3:23; et al.) We need look no further than the history of government to find real evidence of this.

Conclusions

In the earlier conversation on FB, Tennant is correct in pointing out the commenters negative bias against “rule over”, but he fails to acknowledge the reader’s primary fear that man’s rule is not always good. If the commenter was already aware of the scriptures that describe the corruption of man (which are emphasized in churchian circles), then I can see how he could be confused about what Tennant is saying.

It seems that Tennant cannot bring himself to see nor admit that it is God’s ordained order for men to rule over their wives, and that man’s rule is corrupted by the sinful nature (as a product of the fall) and therefore may not always be good. For the uninitiated or those weak in faith, this might call into question the fundamental goodness of God.

At first, we might think Tennant’s theological dance is founded on the Complementarian conclusion that it is better for men not to rule, but to implement a “Federal” system of authority in which authority is shared with women (or “nicely balanced” as Wilson puts it), thereby making it necessary to deviate from God’s ordained order. The fact that women are also fallen, possess less moral agency than men on the average, and are therefore also unfit to lead is casually glossed over, but if this does come into question, this is then easily explained as being another consequence of the fall.

Or, maybe Tennant is aware that such an admission would undermine his whole argument in favor of man being the ruler over his own household (which is correct, but questionable in the eyes of his churchian followers).

Dominic Bnonn Tennant

While it is truly humbling to present a frustrated argument that is nevertheless true, this logical conundrum is exactly what pushes us to find faith in Jesus. But instead of allowing us to see Jesus, he doubles down on saying male rulership is good (and whips his reader in doing so), and then says, “Go see my other series” in which he presents a Biblical exegesis that says male rulership is corrupt.

A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

James 1:8 (KJV)

I suppose things like this are why IGTBAM has decreased in popularity since that time. It must be exhausting for their followers!

It would be much simpler and easier to say that it is right for man to rule (e.g. Headship, patriarchy, etc.), but it is difficult for men and not always good for women. But even so, a lack of male rule would be much worse. Thus, having good strong male rulership is essential.

More Contrasting Exegetical Interpretations

If I haven’t worn the reader out yet, here’s another blunder from Tennant.

Tennant also castigated his reader’s stance on Genesis 3 to be “outside the entire Reformed tradition up until the advent of Feminism”, thereby insinuating that his own stance was in line with Reformed doctrine. So let’s compare Tennant’s beliefs with those of the heavy hitters.

John Calvin’s commentary on the relevant portion of Genesis 3:16 states,

“The second punishment which he exacts is subjection. For this form of speech, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband”, is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, “Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.” As it is declared afterwards, “Unto thee shall be his desire,” (Genesis 4:7.) Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.”

John Gill writes:

“And he shall rule over thee, with less kindness and gentleness, with more rigour and strictness: it looks as if before the transgression there was a greater equality between the man and the woman, or man did not exercise the authority over the woman he afterwards did, or the subjection of her to him was more pleasant and agreeable than now it would be; and this was her chastisement…”

Matthew Henry writes:

“She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority (1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:12). The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris – at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Numbers 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, “Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands”; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been.”

The Reformed Study Bible notes:

The harmony, intimacy, and complementarity of the pre-fall marriage relationship are corrupted by sin and marred both by domination and enforced submission. The restoration of this relationship takes place through new life in Christ.

Bnonn’s exegesis of the passage is strange and novel, it is not mainstream, and it is not historic. It is not from “Reformed theology.” John Calvin, John Gill, Matthew Henry, and the Reformed Study Bible all share an opposing view of this passage.

However, Tennant’s stance coincides with certain views of John MacArthur. The MacArthur Study Bible deviates from the sources above. It states [emphasis mine]:

“Just as the woman and her seed will engage in a war with the serpent, i.e. Satan, and his seed, because of sin and the curse, the man and the woman will face struggles in their own relationship. Sin has turned the harmonious system of God-ordained roles into distasteful struggles of self-will… the woman’s desire will be to lord it over her husband, but the husband will rule by divine design (Ephesians 5:22-25). This interpretation of the curse is based upon the identical Hebrew words and grammar being used in Genesis 4:7 to show how the conflict man will have with sin as it seeks to rule him.”

This is the first commentary that favors Bnonn’s position. As a side note, it is ironic that Bnonn, a self-described post-millennialist, would agree with the perspectives in the MacArthur’s study bible.

John MacArthur, however, is in line with the other interpretations of this passage cited above. On his exegetical sermon on the subject, he stated:

John MacArthur

“Let’s take the first line. “Your desire shall be for your husband.” Some have suggested that this means a sexual desire. That’s certainly not a punishment and that is something God gave them before the Fall. How else could He say, “Be fruitful and multiply,” if they already weren’t prepared to engage in that kind of relationship? This is not God cursing them by having the woman desire a physical relationship with her husband. She has always desired that in a perfectly loving way. This means something else. This means that her desire – her desire is going to be something negative, something that reflects separation and alienation. Up to this point everything does. Enmity was put between the serpent and the woman. Enmity was put between the man and the ground. And enmity is put between the wife and her husband. She can’t do what she wishes. She isn’t going to live her own life totally independent, like the feminists demand, because her husband rules over her. Whatever she wishes, whatever she desires is subject to his will. She won’t always get what she wants. She won’t always have what she desires. She’s going to have to bear the sorrow of unfulfillment. She’s going to have desires and dreams and ambitions that aren’t going to be fulfilled, because her husband does not have a perfect love for her, does not have a perfect understanding of her, or even, some might say, an imperfect understanding of her. And he’s going to rule her in ways that lack compassion and sympathy. This is how it is in the world. This is how it is.

[…]

On the other hand, verse 16, the end, “And he shall rule over you.” Let’s look at the word rule for a minute, mashal. It means to dominate, to reign, literally means to install in office. The idea is as the woman seeks to overthrow the rank, as the woman seeks to twist the divine order, as the woman seeks to master her husband, seek control over him, he dominates her. As the woman tends toward rebellion, the man tends toward despotism. And you have the battle of the sexes right here. That’s why there’s conflict in marriage. And there is conflict in marriage, no question about it. Her desire is teshuqah — teshuqah. It doesn’t mean sexual desire, she already had that before the Fall. It’s the desire to get her way. And it even shows up, sad to say, in places where it shouldn’t show up. Paul is writing to Timothy in the church at Ephesus and he says, “I permit not a woman to teach nor to” – what? – “usurp authority.” Because that’s a tendency.

[…]

What is it saying in chapter 4 verse 7? The Lord is speaking to Cain. He says, “Sin desires you.” What does that mean? Sin wants to control you. Sin wants to dominate you. Sin wants to take over your life. “But you must master it. You must rule over it.” It’s the very same expression. The woman desires to control man, and he rules over her. Sin desires to have you; you must control it. The woman then has the same desire for the man that sin has for Cain, a desire to control, a desire to have its way. And the husband has the same need to control his wife that Cain had to control sin.”

(See References below)

Going back to Bnonn’s comment, he would say that John Calvin, John Gill, Matthew Henry, and the editors of the Reformed Study Bible (as well as John MacArthur personally) have a viewpoint that is “random and nonsensical.” As I have just demonstrated, the majority consensus on the matter disagrees with him.

I do, however, think Bnonn is random and nonsensical. He is a so-called Calvinist / Reformed post-millennialist who rejects historic Reformed positions (and the interpretations recognized by non-Calvinists). The only widespread commentary that can offer him support is Dispensationalist.

References

• Grace to You (feat. John MacArthur): The Curse on the Woman, Part 1 (2000/6/11)
• Grace to You (feat. John MacArthur): The Curse on the Woman, Part 2 (2000/6/18)

Related

• Radix Fidem: Sexual Identity and the Big Picture (2014/12/17)
• Full Metal Patriarchy: Bnonn Doubles Down (2019/9/22)
• Laughing at Feminism: Bnonnas Foster — A Delightful Treat (2019/10/7)
• Σ Frame: Complementarians are Effeminate! (2020/11/9)
• Σ Frame: The Responsible Figurehead / Sock Puppet (2022/5/4)
• Derek L. Ramsey: The Meaning of Head in Colossians 2:9-10 (2023/4/12)
• Derek L. Ramsey: Headship: An Evidence Summary (2023/4/13)
• Derek L. Ramsey: An Analysis of Genesis 3:16 (2023/4/17)