Here's the passage:
3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”
4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,knowing good and evil.”
6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.
I never realized it before but it sounds like Adam was there, doesn't it? What are your thoughts? And why is this detail mentioned?
Yes, I believe that Adam was there beside her, for at least part of the conversation. The Scriptures say Eve was "deceived" implying Adam was not. He took it voluntarily, consciously and deliberately. Why did he? This is conjecture at best, but there are two principle lines of reasoning that are possible. a) Like many of us today, he didn't want confrontation and conflict or b) he loved her and figured "If both of us do it, surely Hashem will forgive us." In view of his response "The woman you gave me did blah blah blah, I lean toward the first line. Adam was passive aggressive.
ReplyDeleteIt sure sounds that way. I always get a kick out of his response to G-d ("The woman you put here with me...she gave me some fruit and I ate"). He could've taken responsibility but he didn't. So that makes it look like he just didn't know how to say "no" to Eve.
DeleteBut weren't they both deceived? I still don't understand how she's the only one deceived. So he didn't buy into the lies? So what was his motivation then to eat the fruit if he didn't think it would make him wise? He was just afraid to say "no"?
DeleteI do more counseling than I care to think about. I can't tell you how often I see this issue, particularly among men. Think of Abram, who had no problem taking on multiple armies, yet could not stand up to his wife about his concubine.
ReplyDeleteI wrote an article in the newspaper a while back called "The Second Sin". Everyone's always concerned about the First Sin, but to me the second is worse. If they had sinned but were contrite, confessing and repentant, Hashem would have forgiven them. How do I know? He's done it for the rest of us ever since. But that Second Sin, blameshifting, or failure to take responsibility, whatever you want to call it, precluded the possibility of forgiveness.
2 Corinthians 11:3 HCSB 3 But I fear that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your minds may be corrupted from a complete and pure devotion to Christ.
ReplyDelete1 Timothy 2:14 HCSB And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
That's so interesting that is explicitly says Adam was not deceived. This would seem then to be the greatest argument against women sitting in positions of authority over local communities, yes?
DeleteActually, no. Here's our reason why.
ReplyDeletehttp://pastorpauley.com/topics/women_role_church.htm
As an aside, I find it interesting how often that conclusion arises. It's strange to me that the man could consciously, deliberately rebel and somehow that qualifies him for leadership?! Wouldn't the fact that rebellion is the same as witchcraft (1 Samuel 15:23) seem to preclude that?
ReplyDeleteWhat about Paul's reasoning here:
Delete11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
Why does Paul cite to Eve's deception as one of the reasons why women must learn in quietness and submissiveness?
There is a chain of command. No doubt about it. But just like in the Marines, as long as you follow the chain of command, you can take leadership. The woman is not to "exousia" authority (pillage, rape, take on her own). But if Deborah can, with the assent of the men of the assembly, serve as a judge and Stephen's daughters serve as prophetesses, then I presume that other women can take some form of teaching or leadership.
ReplyDeleteI try to balance both explicit teaching and case history and I have a hard time wrapping my head around the typical "women can't speak or lead at all" with the multiple examples of godly women who did in the Scriptures and were not judged for it.