Eve was Created Subordinate to Adam....Huh!?

[teresaq]

#472262

Ummm, you have reworded the passage according to your understanding. You have added a lot that comes from other sources but not Ellen White's lone sentence found here. {1SP 39.2} Your last two sentences in the your first paragraph are not from EW's lone statement but some outside source that seems to have made sense to you.

No Romans 5:19 does not tell us what you are reading into it. I think you need to realize that no one here has any problem with Ellen White or Paul. The problem is what you are reading into them but is really coming from extra biblical sources.

We hear the saying that Christ would have died for just one but I guess there are those who believe any one except Eve?

Read the first 7 words of this paragraph and see if it fits with your understanding. {ST, October 8, 1894 par. 2} This says both Adam and Eve were on trial.

[John317]

Let's remember that the test was for Adam and Eve, not for their children. God was testing the first human pair, not the entire human race individually. Adam represented the whole human race, just as later Christ would represent the whole human race.

We're told that if Adam and Eve had both passed the test, God would not have allowed Satan access to this world again. The test would have been completed before the children of Adam and Eve were even born.

[John317]

1 SP 39 says that Adam did not have confidence in His creator and therefore did not understand that God, who had made Eve, could also make another companion in her place. Therefore Adam did not resist her temptation of him but instead decided to eat of the fruit and share her fate.

Is that what it says or not?

[John317]

Romans 5: 15, 16, 17 and 19 all say clearly that sin entered the world because of the disobedience of one man.

Are we to believe that once Eve ate the fruit, there was no use in Adam's resisting the temptation? If we claim that Eve's sin is the one that made humanity fall, we would have to conclude that it was no use for Adam to resist the tempation once he saw that Eve had sinned. But we know that is false. We know that the test was not over when Eve failed the test. The fate of humanity really rested with Adam, not with Eve.

How can this be honestly denied in view of what the Bible and Ellen White teach?

[Neil D]

May I point out to you that "could have" does not trump a "would have"..."could have" in context means that "of the relm of possibilities" , not a chosen course, not a determined alternative...but rather a possibility...And in the context of the passage, this was a possibility *IF THOUGHT ABOUT*....IOWs, just because Adam didn't think about other possibilities doesn't result in the woman being a 2nd class citizen or a person of no account or a person who was expendable.

Now, consider the definitive statement EGW made about the value of one soul as being worth so much that Christ would have died for just one sinner. - (See COL 196)

There is no gender separation here. A sinner is either male or female. There is no possibility....that's a definite alternative course of action. Christ will die for one alone...There is no possible alternative course of action.

Now, In the bible, specifically in genesis, it is written that God created mankind, male and female, in His likeness. If woman was not a ruler of this earth, as man/adam, then the bible is wrong in it's assertion that God created the female in God's likeness....

And if you search out Romans 16, you will find many women who were praised in thier positions of trust...Women who were prophets, women and men pastors, a woman deacon, even a woman apostle. These evidences are not evidences of women who are 2nd class citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. These were women who were redeemed and knew what awaited, not only for them, but for all women...

That's my shorten verson of the value of women. It's late and I'm tired. If you got more questions, you can ask. But this non-sense about women being second class citizens needs to stop...

[Neil D]

Oh, an regarding Roman 5:19-

Can the text be interpreted as Adam being the LAST person to be tempted before humanity plunged into our current circumstances.? Is Romans to be only interpreted as you have expressed, meaning that only Adam was the truely important person/King/representative of this world....?

[John317]

No, it can't be. That would mean, as I said before, that once Eve sinned, it was all over. But it wasn't. If it was all over when Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, then Adam might as well have gone ahead and eaten, too. But that is false thinking.

Humanity's Fall depended on the decision of Adam. If Adam had not fallen, the human race would not have fallen. Romans 5 says plainly that sin came through one MAN, not one woman.

You appear to keep wanting to jump to the conclusions of what it means if these things are true. What we need to do is first establish the facts and then discuss what they mean.

The facts are that God made Adam first and commanded him to walk around the Garden alone and name the animals. He did this before the woman was even created.

The Bible clearly says that God made Eve for Adam, not Adam for Eve.

Also, Ellen White says clearly that when she ate of the forbidden fruit, Eve was at the tree all alone with the Serpent, without Adam at her side.

The Bible does not contradict Ellen White at this point.

I bring these things up because I believe we need to have a clear understanding of what God has revealed about Adam and Eve before we can grasp what God intended for man and woman.

[Parade Orange]

HB!

o ty ty

4 helping me look at SOP in this matter plainly!

i knew EVE was not to be discarded

its so scary sometimes to see what she will say sometimes!

and we have to look at the whole thing instead of cutting a tiny slither and put it on stage with everyone's own bend!

amen im glad u r here!

[Neil D]

Look, new thoughts encourages new thinking and crumbles old thinking....

Why does "it" have to be "all over" when Eve ate?

Genesis shows that there was no advantage in being female or male against Satans wiles...both fell...

Genesis also says that mankind was made in the image of God, both male and female. Therefore, with the exception of the duties of child bearing, each gender of mankind was equal in all ways.

Adam was the last to fall...He was the last hope for mankind but he also fell...willingly.

But he was just as deceived as Eve...The Agape-Love that mankind for each other worked against Adam....

And so what that Adam was first to be created. Woman has a natural instinct to nuture. You think if she was created first that she would have thought of being with someone? No, she would have nutured the animals and not thought about herself far into the weeks and months....Thus delaying mankind populating the earth....Or do you think Adam would have held a candle to Jesus when it comes to relationships?

[Parade Orange]

i know we are woundded in community

and we are healed in community

ADAM had everything!

HE WALKED AND TALKED WITH GOD and a world of pets

yet GOD saID it wasnt good for MAN to be alone!

well well

HE still needed a fellow human

an equal to share with!

we all need each other!

ever looked up the 'ONE ANOTHER' scriptures?

and

and that thing about EVE first i tend to agree

[Tom Wetmore]

This is a supreme "Duh!!!" moment. It also reflects our natural tendency to not truly think through what we read and what we say. (And if anyone would have actually responded to the questions I posed in the post to which I am now replying, they would have gotten the point I am now making.)

The referenced statements are about sin being brought upon the whole human race. If Adam alone had failed the test it would have had the exact same result as it would have had if Eve alone had failed the test. One person would have been exiled from the garden and the other remaining safely within. There would have been no human race descending from that sinful person cast out. A man alone cannot produce offspring, nor can a woman alone. It takes two to tango.

And in defense of what Isaiah56 has posted, both of them had to be tested. BUT if either of them had passed the test, the fate of the whole human race would have been spared. The fact is both failed. And the simple fact is that it took the failure of both to doom their descendants, the whole human race after them.

Otherwise, there would have been no sinful race spawned because it took both of them to produce such a race. IT TOOK TWO, MALE AND FEMALE, TO PRODUCE THE HUMAN RACE. AND IT TOOK TWO TO MAKE IT FAIL.

This has nothing to do with man vs. woman as has been pushed here. The finger pointing started when God pronounced the consequences of their failure. It goes on to this day and is reflected in Scripture. Man has blamed women ever since and did so throughout Jewish history. Paul attempted to correct that by shifting the blame back to Adam where it belonged. Adam was the last hope after Eve failed. The human race would have been spared the fate of the mistake that took two to doom it. But his fall meant that both of them would now pass on sin to all future generations.

The implication that has been left hanging that God would have just left Eve to die and replaced her with another as if she had never been is most unfortunate and adds to the present, and ages old, conflict over the relative worth of women vs. men.

If Adam had stood firm, God would not have left either of them without redemption. As has already been posted, Christ would have died for one person. The whole plan of salvation would have been put into motion for the redemption of just Eve. The very same thing would have happened if Eve had been the one to have stood firm and Adam alone had failed. Christ would have died just to save him.

Call me Captain Obvious...

[Tom Wetmore]

This topic is now reopened for discussion.

Just a few points to add to my previous post -

Notwithstanding the seemingly irrefutable inspiration of EGW, I think it a not so well thought through idea that God could have created a new companion for Adam. ( I think God's inspiration to EGW could have been only that Adam lacked the faith and understanding that God could fix the problem of Eve alone sinning. Human recipients of inspiration tend to fill in blanks and elaborate beyond the initial inspired thought...)

The reason I do not think it was too well thought through was God's pronouncement, as confirmed by Jesus, that the two became one and that such a union was to not be broken, ever, by anyone. The marriage of two creates one new life forever joined by God himself. Jesus noted the clear chain of adultery that results with divorce and remarriage. (And two of the three gospel witnesses do not record Jesus even allowing the justifiable grounds for divorce and remarriage if there is infidelity. ) What the idea suggests is that God would have sanctioned Adam's polygamy or adultery with a new wife. Why would God sanction any adultery?

It also gives the wrong-headed direction that we live with to this very day on this very topic, that women are disposable, lesser humans, subordinate subservient, or whatever. But even worse is the idea that all hope for Eve would have been lost.

I believe that God is much bigger and better than that. The plan of redemption would have been put in motion for Eve. Yes, Adam would have been left alone, separated by the sin/death of Eve. I am sure he would have at some point been willing to take her place to relieve her suffering. Who knows but that God would have accepted his offer to die in her place as a worthy substitute. After all, Christ is described as the second Adam. That leaves the thought that had the first Adam remained sinless, he could have paid the redemption price. And wouldn't he have been amazed to have realized God's power over death when he awakened to the rebreather from God resurrecting him to stand once again by Eve's side!

Of course that is all human speculation. Or is it really? Isn't that also within the grasp of the God of infinite possibilities? There is no problem for which God does not already have a solution. If this one puny mind can conceive of it, the infinite mind of God has already thought of it. I can't outthink God. Nobody can. Absolutely nobody.

God's plan is to restore things to the way they would have been had there never been sin.

[teresaq]

I'm still waiting for the op to be answered...

I know the pioneers of our church didn't think this way...course there are those who make those poor fellows look like ignorant country bumpkins and we are so much smarter now...this apparently being one of those items in which we have "more" light.

[teresaq]

That is an interesting question, Gail. (Aubrey's post plays in here also.)

I remember decades ago when this radio station I listen to was on a certain kick. Every so often every day, all day, for several days they would read the verse, wives submit...and that means. Then they went on to tell people what that meant--according to their understanding of course. We all know tho, that what they believed was straight from the mouth of God and should not be disputed.

There came a point that I started getting irritated hearing it over and over and the question came to mind, are you afraid I am not going to come to the right conclusion so you have to tell me over and over. Which for me made the light come on...that was exactly what they were afraid of. That was in the days when all the ills of marriages and mankind were because wives did not submit to their husbands. The Southern Baptist Church even made a "law" that wives had to submit to their husbands. rotflo It was repealed not long afterwards...

Anyway it also made me think about the verse. I got to wondering why it had "own" in the verse. As I thought about it I realized that we women have the tendency to submit to men in general, be they hubby or no.

I stopped. lol

Are wives subordinate to their husbands? Or are they to submit? Big difference. When are "we" to submit? Does that mean not give our opinion, not speak up? A lot of questions...

[LynnDel]

Here's a real-life example of how some men interpret the submission/subordination issue.

A friend, ok, let's say a fiance', said he absolutely did not believe in compromise, ever, under any circumstances. I asked what he meant, and what would happen if, for instance, the husband wanted red carpet, and the wife wanted blue. He said that in case of disagreement over any issue, the wife's opinions would be laid aside because that was the biblical way, and there would therefore be red carpet in the house. But, he said, the husband would love his wife and want to make her happy, so he would end up saying blue after all. This left me a little confused, because it sounded like that forbidden word, compromise, to me. So we had a little disagreement about that, not major, but I could see this no-compromise/submission issue could possibly become major in case there was some perceived moral point about red carpet over blue, therefore a kind of compromise took place in my brain - something like loving vs. living - and I said, "I don't," before I ever was confronted with the option to say, "I do."

But that little vignette aside, in a household where each loves the other and wants the other to be happy, submission is not obvious. I don't like to make unilateral decisions without discussion, and I don't like them to be made over me. Could it be that the submission advice in these verses came about for those instances where two are not "in honor preferring one another?" Was that evident already in the Garden? The one doing the submitting will never be happy if she feels downtrodden by the way the submission advice is interpreted, if the husband forgets the following verse, "Husbands, love your wives."

[Neil D]

Hey, Lynndell-

curiosity question-

Same scenario- Fiance' situation...the question of submission/compromise....

would you have been happier if he had said that he would have rather kept talking and arrived at a comprimise in which both were never totally satisfied with....?

Or would you had hoped that the man would have wanted his future wife to be happy and would have given in?

Or would you have allowed the spouse to forgo the color of choice and offer another color?

Just curious....

[teresaq]

Surely there has to be a way where both would be happy...

[John317]

I like your post, Lynndale. You were definitely right not to marry the guy you're talking about who didn't accept any compromise. He has the wrong idea of what the Bible says about love in a family. I also like your point about submission not being obvious in a home where there's real love between husband and wife. It seems like this ought to be something everyone knows, but unfortunately there are a lot of people who grow up in homes where real love is absent, so they are confused about what that looks like.

[epaminondas]

There is nothing in the Bible that even remotely translates to "ordain women as ministers, priests and pastors." The distance between that and the passages beloved by the feminists is always very great. It's easier to turn Sunday into the sabbath.

As for the status of Eve in comparison to Adam when Eve was created, that is irrelevant. Eve threw a spanner in the works when she ate the forbidden fruit and got Adam to do so as well. The feminist movement may not be aware of it, but things changed then. Note what in Genesis 3: 16 God, not Paul or someone else, said to Eve.

Now I know this doesn't sit well with the feminist movement and they ignore it. Why not take a black felt tip pen and completely obliterate it? In fact, why not create a feminist Bible and completely leave out all the offending parts?

The attitude among the feminists as far as Genesis 3:16 seems to be, "what, me listen to a man? I'd rather go to hell."

[Tom Wetmore]

That's seems a rather jaundiced and disrespectful attitude toward feminism.

As noted earlier, Genesis 3:16 is a descriptive, not proscriptive, statement by God of what the consequences of sin would be. But it is odd that pretty much the whole rest of that pronouncement of the curse of sin is ignored or at best understood correctly as descriptive. If the whole curse was a pronouncement by God of how we should conduct our lives, we would not allow a women to use anything for pain in childbirth since that is what God intended for women - that they suffer the pain. And men would have to earn their food by sweaty manual labor. We would also not use any chemical or other means of controlling weeds since God intended for men to endure the pain and backbreaking work of fighting with thistles and thorns in our gardens. It would also be wrong for men to enjoy food. And since that part was the curse on Adam, it would seem that women are not to be gardeners. And ultimately the death of man is God's plan?

So why do we only focus on that one phrase of the curse? And why do we feel a burden to live according to the curse and not to strive to overcome it? I thought the objective of God's plan of salvation was to reverse the consequences of the curse of sin.

[LynnDel]

There needs to be a willingness to see each other's point of view so that an agreement can be reached, so that the original opposing choices are truly changed into one common choice or even parallel complementing choices, and neither feels they have given up a a better first choice for a lesser second choice. Instead, they both feel they have come to the best final choice. I know some may feel that is impossible, but I have experienced it and know it can be done, and in fact can become second nature.

[LynnDel]

Tom, you have said it better than I could have. To describe those who don't believe their spiritual gifts should go unused due to to cultural norms of a bygone generation as "feminist," my understanding of Epa's comment, is in error. In fact, feminism as a general concept leaves me cold, but to ignore clear scripture about the equality of individuals, the gifts of the spirit, the functioning of the body of Christ, and how we can serve in unity in both the best and the worst of times - that leaves me colder!

LD

[teresaq]

Lord have mercy! Is bigotry/prejudice so strong one cannot read what is written but fear takes over...?

[gretta]

I have often had the thought rattling around in my head that in Gen. 3:16-17 God told the man not to eat the forbidden fruit. After this, Eve appeared on the scene. As such, it was when Adam ate the fruit that the sin occurred. Because Eve had not listened to Adam about what God said Gen. 3:16 includes that Adam will rule over her.

I do not know what would have happened to Eve if Adam hadn't eaten the fruit, but it would not be what we have today.

I do not believe Eve was created subordinate, but because she was the one who gave the fruit to Adam, she was made to be subordinate. I also believe this was a blessing for our own good.

[Tom Wetmore]

My answer above and the previous ones have been my attempt to zero in on answering the OP. I think it all stems from a misunderstanding and selective distortion of the curse. The curse was clearly not an expression of God's original plan nor His ideal. I think the Jews first went off the track sometime since there is evidence of a misogynistic bent in the teachings of the rabbis reflected in the prayer thanking God that they were not born as a women and that women were not worth teaching the law. And to a lesser degree the Mosaic laws tended to devalue women. Paul as a good Jew and a Pharisee reflects those views in his writings, although I think if one compares his roots with where he ended up, one might find him more progressive than he is often given credit for.

But I think the specific warp of men and women not being created equal came more in the post-apostalic period of the early church fathers attempting to turn the church into a patriarchy with male only leadership. Women were given a most subservient role in the church, if anything at all. It is deeply disturbing to read the extreme misogynist views of some of those early church fathers. Those teachings and perspectives on women laid a very deep foundation that even the earthshaking changes of the Reformation did not overcome. There have been bright spots in this Protestant dominated era. But the long standing Catholic traditions still permeate Christendom. That is one reason I have often pointed out that as a deep root of the opposition to women in ministry, not to mention their ordination to that role.

It is clear that the Bible teaches they were created equal. EGW confirms that plainly. But the curse is still with us. Sin is not gone completely. We need to start living up to God's solution to the curse of restoring His original ideal and not down to the level of the curse.