The Bible: Chauvinist Propaganda Pt. 3

3. Woman committed the first sin.

Once upon a time, Eve ate the fruit first and doomed woman-kind to inferiority for all time.

Now let's look at the Bible.

Gen 3:6 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. (NIV)

Now, if the verse ended here, we'd actually have a basis for saying that the Bible claims female inferiority, but GUESS WHAT! It doesn't end here. This is the rest of the verse:

She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

Adam was right there the whole time. Now...let's think about this, b/c I've heard men and women alike who use passages like I Tim. 2 to say that women are totally to blame. I will get to I Tim. 2 in a second, but before I do consider this:

Adam did not for one second think that Eve was inferior to him. Remember an earlier discussion that Adam was overjoyed at her creation? Well, he definitely didn't think of himself as superior when she offered him fruit! He joined right in! Many people say this is b/c Adam loved Eve, and they criticize God for disciplining this love: that Adam would choose his wife's desires over his own death. How romantic.

This is an example of human "surface logic." (Hint: "Surface logic" ALWAYS starts: "What kind of a God would....") As in: What kind of a God would reward Adam's love for Eve with death? Well, for one thing...he didn't do it out of love. This is plain in verse 12.

12 The man said, "The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." (NIV)

Adam had a choice. If he really loved Eve so much, then why did he blame shift? A man who actually loved his wife more than God would have taken the blame for her. But I really like his wording, b/c it is just so...human. He is ultimately blaming God! He does it in a progression. First of all: blame God b/c if He hadn't given me this woman, I wouldn't have done it. This is a huge slap in God's face, b/c Eve was made SPECIFICALLY for Adam's needs. God says she is, and Adam admitted it in Genesis 2. Secondly, he blames Eve herself--which is such a pansy (and definitely not loving) way of handling it. Then, finally he admits that he ate it, but he does it in martyr fashion. "I'm a victim of my circumstances!" basically. So...what is the logical answer? Adam knew exactly what he was doing--he bought the lie and ate the fruit despite the consequences. I mean...also notice Gen 2:16-17! Who did God forbid to eat the tree? Eve? No! He directly told Adam. In fact, Eve doesn't even enter the picture until verse 21!

Now...I suppose you could guess that at some point God told Eve the same thing...however...that's not exactly stated in the Bible. The Bible only records Adam being told. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. We do know that she knew about the command b/c of what she told the snake in Genesis 3:2-3.

2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,^(B) 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" (ESV)

I've heard that Eve adds "neither shall you touch it, lest you die" on purpose. I'm not sure that she did--especially in light of passages like I Tim. 2 that say she was deceived. Maybe this is evidence of the earlier thought that she wasn't directly informed by God. Who knows. However, before assuming anything, realize that the Bible says that she was deceived in I Tim 2, so she probably wasn't purposely adding to the law so much as trying to be "safe" (or else Adam relayed the message wrongly...but that's assuming a lot, so let's drop it). Her perspective may have been that it is better to abstain totally--don't even touch it--let alone eat it and die.

This is very interesting for two reasons. First of all, realize that there was only one sin to be committed in the Garden. That means everything else was fair game. Things that we consider sins now in our fallen world, either were not thought of as sin, or weren't thought of at all, since there was no sin but one. I find this very interesting b/c it seems that the first "sin" was when Satan fell. In this sense, there were two "falls." One for the angels and one for man. However, the only "fall" that warranted atonement was the fall of man. Obviously, we as men are very different spiritually and have a completely different import to God than angels. Anyway...at some point that first "fall" directly influenced the second...however, the second fall didn't happen until Adam and Eve decided it would happen. They heard the lie. Eve was deceived by it, even though she knew the command and ramifications. Adam was completely conscious of it. They both chose to fall, but the fall didn't happen until they ate. The lie being told to them was not their sin. Their choice was their sin.

Second of all, we as Christians and non-Christians like to add to God's law all the time. Christians do this, like Eve (possibly), to be "safe," and non-Christians do this so they don't have to obey a God they can classify as unreasonable. For instance, Christians will take verses like Romans 12:1-2 and James 4:4 and then say that any contact with the world is wrong--that only going into "Christian Ministry," only having contact with Christians, and hating the world and everything in it is right. That is taking those verses to a sinful extreme. God says, "Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." There is a difference between "don't love" and "hate." We are not to hate and think ourselves better than the people of the world. We are to hate the sin of the world and realize we are capable of those same sins. Also, the people of the world can ONLY come to Christ through God's Spirit working. The way God has chosen for the Spirit to work is through people who wrote down His Word in the past and through people reading and sharing that Word today. If we shut ourselves off from the world in order to be "safe," we are disobeying one of the greatest commandments we've been given (Mr. 16:15). One cannot take a doctrine to the extreme and nullification of another doctrine.

Non-Christians add to the Bible so that they don't have to believe it. They quote those "Crazy Deuteronomic" laws out of context and then explain that there is no reason to follow any of God's laws based on the "unreasonableness" of Deuteronomy. Non-believers also point out all the contradictions in Christians themselves, call that "Christianity," and then reject God. However...this is flawed thinking. If a child gets hit by a car, one cannot blame the parent who warned and furthermore put him or herself in harms way on behalf of the child.

There is another reason we can't credit Adam for "loving" Eve so much that he disobeyed God. This is directly related to the problem with the "brotherhood of man" mentality. From the beginning, God's chief end for us has always been to glorify Him, not to glorify each other. Besides, the only true way of loving each other is to love God first. Then we are free to love others without regret. This is not God being selfish. This only makes sense. You see, if you love someone or something over God, you have just made them an idol. Think of how you should love a Being who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life. The only form of love for that Being should be selfless, adoring worship.

If we love someone or something more than God, we have put that fallible being in a place of worship. This is misplaced affection and can only cause a painful life. Imagine when that person dies! Who do we become embittered against the most? God, of course. That's painful. The One we should have trusted the most, we now see as our worst enemy, all because we didn't love the person in the context of God, but rather we loved God in the context of a person. We can't see God's plan, b/c we refused to see it the second we idolized that person. When we love people above God, we focus too much on this life and not on the next. It is building a house with the roof at the bottom and the foundation at the top--it's not what we are made to do. If Adam had truly loved his wife, he would have loved God first and obeyed Him. If he had truly loved his wife, he would have stopped her hand as she reached for the fruit.

Now let's look at that I Timothy 2 passage. This passage seems to say that sin entered the world because women were too stupid to know better and so the serpent lead them astray, but man wasn't lead astray, so to punish women we won't let them be pastors, and we're going to make women shut up and get me a beer and the remote while I watch the game.

Okay okay okay...However...isn't that the basic idea we are so often told when this passage comes up? I've read commentaries that say basically, "Perhaps Paul was a bit of a chauvinist by our standards; however, if you look at how women were treated as a whole back then, Christianity actually treated them much better." That's kind of a load of baloney since historically women were well-respected in secular Roman culture. Furthermore, I don't buy that Paul was chauvinist at all b/c of the adamance of Galatians 3:28!

I also have heard many many theologians say that the reason Paul tells women to study in silence is because, of a few mouthy, overbearing women he had to deal with at the time and so Paul was fed up and just told all women to be quiet. However...that doesn't sit well with me either, b/c (1) the Bible isn't a place for opinion and Paul of all people would have known that (even when Paul says, "this is what I think" it's still in the inspired Word, you know?), and (2) I've heard PLENTY of mouthy disrespectful men nowadays, and I know that Paul wouldn't like that either because of what he says in I Tim. 2:8--which we can and should apply nowadays. I don't think we can just write it off as an archaism. Therefore, there has got to be a better interpretation.

Before we delve, remember in a former discussion about men's and women's strengths? Men's inward strength is efficient, linear thinking. Men's outward strength is physical strength. Women's inward strength is multi-perspective, subtle thinking. Women's outward strength is physical beauty. Keep these God-given traits in mind as we go through these verses.

8I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling;

Notice that hands are something that men use physically. This verse clearly shows that men are not to use them to fight. Instead, they should be used to the glory of God. What about men's inward strength? Should he assume the worst and get angry without listening to all sides of an argument? No. He should exhibit wisdom and fortitude.

Now...that covers the men's verse. The next seven verses instruct the women. So...why only one verse for men and seven for women? Well, if someone thinks linearly, you only have to say, "don't do this" and that's enough for them to deal with. What if someone thinks in layers? You probably have to explain things a little more so that they will get a good understanding of what you mean and why you say it. Interesting, b/c that's exactly how most women think.

9likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Basically Paul is telling women to make the outside match the inside. If you are going to say you are a Christian, then people should be able to see it.

There are two extremes we need to deal with here. First of all, the obvious one is not to dress like a sex object. But also, notice there is nothing in this verse about dressing plainly. Modestly, yes...but what are the exact words? "with what is proper for women who profess godliness." So, is godliness true inner beauty? Yes. Is godliness plain and boring? No! So why dress like it? There is nothing wrong with being pretty, as long as women are doing it within the realm of modesty. Everyone's definition of "beauty" may be different within that realm, and that's fine, but you are allowed to be beautiful, Ladies! Just don't take it to a sinful extreme. That's all. Besides, cults and male-dominated false religions follow weird oppressive codes of dress for their women. Don't you think we should be different?

11Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (ESV)

First of all, let's realize that verse 11 says that women are to learn. Other translations say "study." This is important, b/c a lot of women use this passage as leeway to turn their minds off and just blindly follow whatever the menfolk say rather than inductively reasoning out what God is trying to tell them. God commands women to study and learn about Him. This is huge, and we need to keep it in mind when we get to verse 15. I'll tell you why in a second.

For now, let's cover these verses. I found something interesting that I hadn't considered before. Notice the last word in verse 11: "submissiveness." Until now I had thought that that word meant submissiveness solely to the men in charge of the church...however, that's not necessarily what it's talking about. It's talking about submissiveness to God. Let me explain this...is she learning about the men in the church or about God when she is studying? She is learning about God. So when she is learning about God, is she answerable to the men of the church or to God Himself? To God Himself. This is why she is in submissiveness to God. Just like verses 8-10 tell everyone that they are supposed to be in obedience to God. Of course within the church a woman should submit to the church's authority...but if she is studying about God...then she is submissive to God.

(Of course the passage in I Cor 14 says that women are not to speak at all in the church. The context is talking about tongues, however. So...if you believe tongues and prophesy are dead, then you definitely can't use this as a basis for women not speaking at all in the church. Tongues are another discussion. This blog is too long already.)

Now verse 12 and following is where many Christians believe God doesn't want women as pastors. That since women sinned first, they are being punished by not being allowed to preach. I have heard others who say that women are allowed to preach nowadays, and that this verse is only to be taken in historical context of the women at that time. Well...let's look.

If we read this verse by itself, it seems to say that under no circumstance should a woman speak or give instruction to a man; however, we would be contradicting other verses as we do that. Miriam was a prophetess. Deborah was a judge. Anna was a teacher in the synagogue. Eve was created to help and complete Adam. Priscilla had direct influence in the new testament church. Etc. It is true that men generally do the teaching; however, if women were not supposed to instruct at all, the women I just mentioned would have been recorded as unrepentant sinners, not the godly women they were. Think of Rahab. She ended up being a godly women, but the Bible mentions that she was a harlot--not a good thing. Also, Mary Magdalene is said to have been a woman of ill-repute at one time. My point is that the Bible shows sin for what it is. If Deborah had been sinning for being a judge, the Bible would have said it. However, she is painted as a hero and courageous leader.

Let's look at verses 11 and 12. I looked up the words in the Greek and the word "Quiet" doesn't mean "shut up," it means "not meddling in the affairs of others." "Teach" means "to teach" but it also means "to discharge the office of a teacher and act as a teacher." The word "authority" means "one who acts on his own authority" an "absolute master" or "one who exercises dominion over another."

What I am suggesting, and what I believe to be a better interpretation is that this verse is simply saying that a woman is not to be an autocrat. Let's think about this, though...when is a man ever commanded to have dominion over women? We are told that man is to have dominion over the animals. However, men are commanded to love their wives. Who is to have dominion over men? God. Who is to have dominion over women? God. Who has God made to be the leader in the family and the church? Man. There is a difference between dominion and leadership. God has both positions over us; however, in the case of the family and the church, only one person can make final decisions and God has given that position to men. He keeps the dominion position, because only a perfect Being should have absolute dominion over fallible beings. Neither men nor women have absolute dominion--and definitely not women, since men at least have been given the leadership position.

But why is Paul giving this warning to women and not men? Well, for one thing, he does give it to men in passages like I Cor. 7 and Eph. 5. However, in this case he is specifically warning women about being overbearing and authoritarian. He gives his reasons in the following verses:

13 For God made Adam first, and afterward he made Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived by Satan. The woman was deceived, and sin was the result. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

We've already discussed this "birth order" controversy from verse 13 in a past blog, so let's move on to 14 and 15. Here we see the point that I discussed earlier about Eve being deceived. Obviously, being a woman I don't like to admit that women could ever possibly be deceived. I generally like to think of us as free-thinking, wise individuals. However...think about this. Think of how many women are in church as opposed to men. 44% of women versus 32% of men. Why is this? I am venturing a guess here...but I think it directly relates to this passage. Women are more susceptible to convincing arguments. This is good when it comes to believing in Christ. This is bad when it comes to believing Satan's lies.

But wait! Doesn't this point out that men are stubborn and generally hate being told what to do, many times to their own detriment? The fact that only 32% of men are in church certainly isn't to their credit. This is unfortunate and true. However...if men and women do what God tells them to do, it is much better to give the leadership to the one who generally doesn't back down from their position as much. Of course there are weak men and strong women...but I'm talking about the norm. A leader should be the one who is built to protect rather than nurture. If someone attacks the family, say a robber or a molester, who does the family hide behind? The one who nurtures or the one who protects? There must be a leader and it makes most sense for that to be the one who is built to be the protector.

As Paul says in verse 15, women will be saved in childbearing. This is a very interesting choice of words, b/c it means literally bearing a child, but it also has the ramifications of nurturing and instructing that child. It doesn't mean that woman can only go to heaven if they have children. People who interpret the verse that way are ignoring verse 11 and the command for women to study--there would be no point for a woman to study if she was simply a baby-factory. Women are to learn about God so that when they have children, they can raise them the right way. It means that even though Eve messed up through being deceived, she was given the promise that through childbirth would come the Messiah who would pay for her sin. Also, she was given the job of raising godly children who would grow in God's grace.

I want to make a direct application of this passage with my own life this past Sunday. This past Sunday a woman gave the teaching in my church. At first, I had a problem with this, b/c I was thinking about how only men are supposed to teach. Then I realized that I was allowing society's tradition to overcome correct Biblical thinking. The head of my church is a man. Men lead my church...however, this woman was introduced to us by a man who told us that she had some very good points on the particular passage to be covered that day. Would it be better for a man to plagerize her research or let her speak for herself? She is not placing herself in the leadership of the church if she expounds on the Truth that the whole congregation agrees with anyway. If a woman is running her mouth and keeping men down and publishing her own agenda, there is definitely a problem...but...be careful...ask yourself...is it really right for men to do that either? Men should lead because Christ leads the church. Women should not lead the church, b/c the church does not lead Christ. But neither men nor women are the absolute leader. That position is reserved for God alone.



P.S.

Sometimes you hear people say things like, "If Adam hadn't eaten the fruit, there is a good chance that God would have just destroyed Eve and made a new woman for Adam." I find this hard to believe on the basis that once Eve ate the fruit, mankind had fallen. There was no going back. God couldn't and wouldn't have gone back on one of His promises! He said that if anyone ate of the tree, death would come to them. Sin would enter the world by any one person's actions. In a morbidly sick sense, it's to women's advantage that Adam did eat the fruit after Eve offered it to him, b/c...just imagine if Adam HADN'T eaten the fruit! Feminists, you wanna talk about male oppression?? There'd be NO living with men if Adam had left the fruit alone! Okay...so...that was just for laughs...I'm done...

Next: 4. God is referred to as "He."