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

[teresaq]

I'm not going to say our pioneers were perfect yet I believe they would turn over in their graves if they could see how far afield the church they founded and worked hard "to grow" has become...

'Course they had to really come to terms with this issue given the role of Ellen White...something we have lost over time. It seems much more fashionable to defend her than to actually understand what she has to say other than in a limited way. Maybe it would be more accurate to say, how she has been interpreted by certain characters who also read her according to their natural bent and/or understanding...

I'm wondering how we got "here" from our pioneers stance. Has this subculture always been in the SDA church? Is it something new that is surfacing in order to refute/prevent WO-Is it from outside adopted by those who see it as a good weapon? Or adopted by that possible subculture in our church?

TO ALL-THIS IS NOT ABOUT WOMEN'S ORDINATION, PLEASE DO NOT BE ALARMED!

I have to tell you when I read DB's highly subjective stance and the subsequent thoughts from others I was quite shocked at the methods adopted to counteract WO. Apparently they were so desperate they have not thought out the full ramifications of this line of reasoning. Suffice it to say they are working quite hard to undo the work of our pioneers.

While appearing to be biblically based it is one of those things where, if one erases all the words from man and, deals with scripture only it is impossible to come to such conclusions as put forth.

[teresaq]

Another one of those "the light dawns" moments. It appears to have been created and adopted to specifically prevent any possibility of WO being even considered. If I be right, I appeal with all my heart to the conscientious, Please think carefully about the path you are considering.

So, while this thread had no thought of WO, apparently this error being invented and promulgated is ALl about WO.

If WO is not biblical distorting the scriptures to prove it will only lead to the ease of distorting yet more and more scriptures to suit one, as well as becoming more and more numb to the HS...

[phkrause]

My original thought on your post Tom is I it.

[teresaq]

And I like your statement. That was cute.

And yes, I think Tom has expressed his thoughts quite well, as well as defining the real problem.

[Gordon1]

To Isaiah 56 - Your thoughts are correct.

[CoAspen]

TW, very well put...although it will not change the minds of those who see the role of women to be 'different', a code word for 'less' in my mind. It is a continuing consternation of why this subject seems to be a hot button like so many others, ie, what to eat or not eat on the sabbath, etc. Adventism still has strong roots in righteousness by works, but relabeled as 'correct theology'.

[Tom Wetmore]

Strangely ironic since works oriented theology seems intent on overcoming sin. Yet this one point of the original curse of sin is not to be overcome but embraced as a virtue. I don't think that is what God intended for us to do.

[teresaq]

In this new thinking embraced by a few in the church, does it also extend to heaven?

[Tom Wetmore]

No, I definitely do not see the source of male/female inequality as from heaven. IMHO it is a clear manifestation of our sinful condition. That would pretty much pinpoint its original source.

That equality is the oneness of which Jesus spoke, of the Godhead, of husband and wife, of his hope/prayer for his followers. That is the defining sign/seal of Jesus followers. The opposite would be a distinctive mark of those that are not.

[CoAspen]

And the subject will be debated again.. for the umpteenth time in an other place on the forum! Why? I have not a clue! Regardless of ones belief, why is their a need for correctness?

Why not march forward, together, into the future instead of circling the desert? What is more important, each persons position at the table or to all be at the table? (Hmmm, Christ said something about that, maybe it has more than one application!)

(mumble-mumble, shake head, don't understand)

[teresaq]

I'm wondering if those who have accepted the belief that woman was created subordinate to man believe woman is to be subordinate in heaven also...

I do agree with your points, and I think that partially answers CoAspen's thoughts as valid as I see them.

If deep down we believe anyone has any kind of authority over another then it will be lived out...Whereas if we dwell on the oneness of the Trio, their constant submission to each other...By beholding we become...

Yes, CA, I am quite sure many of those who "believe wrong" in this area will be at that table also.

[teresaq]

The men don't have to answer if they don't wish to... Is it hard for men to think they might have fallen for Satan's deceptions just as readily as Eve did? That old "ego" problem? Would Satan have had a different strategy for Adam? Or is that fallen nature thinking to think that Adam would have seen through the scheme?

Adam and Eve

[Tom Wetmore]

It was, as it still is, two heads are better than one, there is strength in numbers. The truth be told in my own marriage, I can tell you that if I am with my wife, I am less likely to do wrong. If we are both on our own, she is less likely than I to do wrong. She has a more sensitive moral compass than I do and a stronger resolve to do what is right than me. I am quite certain that had I not married her there is a much higher probability that I would not even still be a believer. I have little doubt that she would still be a believer regardless of who she married.

It is my subjective observation that women tend to be more morally sensitive, more spiritual, and better behaved than men. Men are more likely than women to commit serious crimes. There are far more men than women in prison. There are obviously individual differences, but that is overall a fundamental difference between men and women.

I do not believe for a second that had Adam been the one to have been confronted by the serpent (without regard to being alone or not since I do not accept they were actually separated at the tree) Adam would have been at least as likely to have succumbed to temptation.

[Tom Wetmore]

To your more specific questions...

I think there is a male ego factor, but I think it is millennia of enculturation of male dominated (there is that curse thing) society and family life that determines that women are the weak link. It is simply as I stated it before, the finger pointing started when God confronted the couple in Eden. That finger pointing continues to this day because sin is still in our DNA. The balance and equity of creation was upset and it has not been restored, although we are admonished to act in faith according to the promise fulfilled by Christ that it will be soon.

I think the evidence is clear that men fall for temptation just as easily, if not more easily, than women. Yes the devil tailors his temptations to the individual. And I think the devil knew that if he got Eve to eat first, Adam would have fallen easier than if had he spoke to Adam first. But I have little doubt that the devil couldn't have used a strategy tailored to Adam. I suspect that it is even odds that Adam would have fallen for the scheme just as Eve had. They were equal.

And that brings me back to the elements of the curse in question...

The pair were created equal. Sin unbalanced that. Men became more domineering and women more deferential. That curse of sin leads to the faulty perception that men are smarter, more morally resolute and stronger in more than simply physical strength. It has lead to the false perception that women are weaker just because they are deferential. It distorts many positive qualities, and the myopic view that if that is the way it is that is the way it should be by God's design. Being nurturing and merciful is viewed as weak and less worthy than being tough and disciplined. Being a peacemaker (obvious result of being deferential) is weak, resistance and defending oneself is manly and to be preferred. Practically every feminine quality is given a negative twist relative to its opposite masculine quality. That is the curse of sin seeping through our very DNA. (Think about the rewards given to aggressors in the work place.)

But look at the perspective of Jesus. He turned all of that on its head. Read the Beatitudes. Each characteristic fits women better than men in our sinful frame of mind. But Jesus said they are the blessed ones.

I think that traditional understanding of this whole topic is indeed greatly influenced by the results of that curse in the garden. We men just think we would have done better because that is the way sin has made us think and women meekly concede that argument in deference to men since that is the way sin has made them think.

[CoAspen]

[teresaq]

There is an age-old debate about whether Adam was at the tree also or not. I am with Wesley and EGW on this one. It just doesn't make sense to me why Adam wouldn't have said something...

I do agree that our translations certainly make it look as if A were right there, at least when E gave him the fruit, but being positive EGW was right-as well as Wesley and others....I studied those scriptures---couldn't see any indication that would justify their position other than the arguments against A being there, such as the question I have. But certainly not some of the immature arguments I have seen. I can't see how those would convince anyone of anything.

For some reason I thought to do a word study on "with". You would think there would only be one word in Hebrew for "with". There is only one in English I think. It isn't something I had thought about til then. It does seem God picked two of the more exact languages for a reason. Perhaps we all should start studying Greek and Hebrew...

.....

You certainly are honest!

.....

If Adam was not able to succumb to temptation then there was no test for him, only for E.

.....

I am rather confused and amazed that those who are the most verbally abusive at the least criticism of EGW-or wish to believe there is criticism of "SoP"- can be the quickest to mangle and explain away what she clearly says.

All but one instance say that the angels told both not to separate from each other. It just happens that Eve tended to wander as they were working, ummm, side by side, doing the very work and roles they were assigned.

I guess it is just hard to give up something one wants to believe...Unless it can then be turned around where the "learner" becomes the "teacher" and is the one to have "known it along" and then "teaches" it to the one who pointed it out in the first place.

[teresaq]

I have done just a little bit of study into ancient cultures and what I found fascinating is that the further back one goes, or the closer to creation, the more rights women had.

They lost rights apparently gradually over time...

....

Aguas! Careful! You'll sound like a "feminist" and we can't have that!

.....

I always thought "the weaker vessel" meant weaker physically...the man was a misogynist going by certain really ignorant statements he made but I was exposed to him more on than off for the first 12 years of my life and then to others occasionally. So yes, there are men who sincerely believe women are inferior to men. They appear to be truly ignorant as to their real feelings towards women. The point of that is that I grew up angry for several reasons and being treated as if I had no value, not just as a human being, but even less so a woman, was one of them. Fighting to have value in both arenas. The unconscious thought was if I had no value I should die...No wonder I ran around like a chicken with its head cut off for so, so many years. Poor God having to wait for those brief moments...At first when I read that text I read it in the light of the misogynist's thinking, as a person of lesser value than a man, something men had to tolerate...much like some have expounded. At some point I came to the conclusion that it meant women were weaker physically, but as I got over the sting of the 'misguided', I now think it means men should protect their wives from themselves.

I believe DB exposed his true beliefs re women with that sermon against WO. In my opinion he exposed it before that on tv when he had his wife read the questions from cards that he then answered. Not much different than asking individuals to read some text from the bible as if that were true participation in a bible study. Don't ask me cause I'll tell 'you' to read it yourself. I don't like games and have contempt and disgust for those who play them. Something I'm trying to work on. Anyway in my mind he didn't treat his wife as a true equal but more like his secretary. I really wondered about her, tho. Guess people just think that's the way it is... Or maybe she liked the idea of being on tv even those conditions...

I tend to agree generally with your assessment.

[epaminondas]

The crux of the matter is status of Eve as compared to Adam, and by extension male to female. The only place in Genesis 3 where this is clearly addressed (Paul had this and that to say on the matter, as well) is Gen 3:16.

Proscriptive, descriptive, who cares? It says what will be in the future from that time onwards. This is the only clear, unambiguous statement addressing that topic in Genesis 3. If the Bible later says otherwise it would mean the Bible contradicts itself. Does the Bible do that? Why ignore the clear statements and go for the vague passages?

As for women suffering so much under men for so long, read Judges 16:16. That goes back more than 3000 years and tells the story of a very strong man suffering under a woman in the middle east, where women are supposed to count for nothing. In Saudi Arabia I've seen a young woman telling her husband to shut up, she wanted to talk. She then went on telling me why their son should be bumped to the top of the list to have his tonsils out, very fast and in a great many words while her husband smiled sheepishly at me who was clearly very amused. I've also seen an old man caring very much for his old wife whom he brought in with Gradenigo's syndrome. He was extremely worried when I told him that without surgery she would die. She had her surgery and made a total recovery. If one would believe the feminists the first man should have had his wife's head off and the second one should not have given a hoot.

Not only does the Bible say women should listen and obey (nice hymn, too, isn't it?), but somehow I find it also sits well with me. A woman who knows how to play her cards right can also get much more out of men than the shrew they seem to think they should be.

It's acceptable for women not to know any better and agitate for this and that. What is disgusting is to see males who want to ride into high church and public positions on the woman's back. Suddenly they're more feminist than the females. It's sickening.

[Tom Wetmore]

It really is quite important to understand the difference between whether the statement was descriptive or proscriptive. The difference leads in two distinctly different directions. If one takes it as proscriptive, it says that this is not just how things will be in the future, but how they should ideally remain. It proscribes or directs that this is the rule, a mandate, a requirement from the one pronouncing it. More to the point, it leads to the conclusion that this is God's ideal, the way He intended things to be in a perfect union between man and woman. And that results too often in the subjugation, repression, use and abuse of women by men, all in the Lord's name.

If that is the case, one has to ask if that was how it was to be before sin entered their relationship. And ultimately one must ask if that is how it will be throughout eternity, once sin is completely eradicated from this earth and all of its inhabitants. If there is a negative answer to either or both of those questions, one should seriously question whether the traditional fundamentalist view, Judeo-Christian or Muslim, is correct.

On the other hand, if it is descriptive, it is describing the consequences of the fateful decision to bring sin upon the whole of humanity. It simply states the results of sin. That is very far from God's ideal. We so easily understand all of the rest of the details of the curse that way. We take it as a given that sin leads to death, but we do all in our power to forestall the inevitable. If we see it as the result of sin, the more we seek to overcome sin, and its consequences. Just as we will strive to reverse, or at the very least, ease the pain and misery of what sin has done to all of us in all other areas of our existence, we should not neglect to reverse the part of the curse of sin that fractured the perfect oneness of man and woman created in the perfect image of equanimity and union of God.

Why do we resist this so much?

[teresaq]

Genesis 3:17, 18. And for those of us who believe EGW has insights into the whole controversy between Christ and Satan,

ST February 24, 1898, par. 4

16MR 247.2

Given your statement about women suffering under men I take it you do not believe EGW when she contradicts your observations?

On the other hand I am in full agreement that there are women who are just as obnoxious as many males and can be just as abusive as the "best" of males. That does not negate the fact that women in general have been held under in many ways.

[epaminondas]

Who told you God intended it to be a description of an unintended consequence? Who says God didn't intend it as a punishment for womenfolk? The proscriptive/descriptive bit is not in the Bible and you can't put it there. It is only a way to bend things your way. This is the kind of thing that turned sabbath into Sunday.

Once, long ago, after school, I worked in a furniture shop for the holidays which extended credit on the never-never. This attracted the drinking classes. I was once present when a woman explained to the manager why they were so far behind on their installments - a long, sad and tragic tale of woe. When she had left the manager said to me with a disgruntled expression on his face, 'yes, the poor we will always have with us.' I immediately reflected upon Jesus' words to Judas when he complained that the perfume the woman used on Jesus could have been sold and the money given to the poor. Was this a curse on mankind because of Judas' feigned concern for the poor? I realise the poor are politically correct holy cows, but they are nuisances - they are rowdy in public places, fight and vomit in the train, break bottles and litter in public places, consume welfare money, often for drinking and gambling, and after all the money pumped into them, they stay poor. Who is to say that was not a curse by Jesus on mankind because of their often hypocritical concern for the poor? I realise that any theologian worth his salt can inject words into that that will obfuscate the whole issue and in the end, like Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich said they should do, bend it.

[CoAspen]

Eve was to be punished by being sub to Adam who sinned also, even to a greater extent, by his own words. God wanted this?

The poor are a drag on society so that must be an other intention of God?

Would most likely be true if ones impression of God was based on those of the heathen gods.

What is your view of God?

[epaminondas]

Adam had his own punishment. It's spelled out in Genesis 3. Since we're adding to the Bible, allow me this: because Adam listened to Eve Adam was told, so you want to listen to her. Well, I'll make her talk and talk and nag and nag, and you'll have to listen. When death eventually comes, you'll welcome it. Obviously the preceding is not in the Bible, but it might as well have been. We're all adding to the Bible in this forum.

My view of God? God is the creator of all. His higher beings He didn't want to be robots, so He put a degree of randomness into all of us. That means despite being influenced by our genetic makeups and environments we have some degree of freedom of choice, and unpredictability. That is really what threw the spanner into the works as far as Lucifer and us are concerned. But the only other choice is programmed limitations as to what we can and can't do. Obviously, that is not the kind of God we have. God is totally consistent and totally just. There is no forgiveness of sins - Jesus paid the price for our sins, so they're not forgiven, but paid for. We don't have to pay. God is a God of fact and logic - the strong nuclear force is just so strong, not any weaker or stronger, same with gravity and many other (about 20) forces. I can go on for much longer, but I don't believe in many words. You'll get my drift from here. God made things just so, and words won't change that. Keep the story about the potter and the clay in mind. Women, be glad you were not created as rats or snakes. I wonder why I was not made a very rich man, but I was not. Tough luck. God does what He wants to do, and we can't question that.

[phkrause]

Interesting story, sounded like some people I know, but they were not poor, they were rich. I know many poor and they are hard working and don't act one iota as you have describe. I count myself very fortunate to be called poor.

[Tom Wetmore]

My point earlier was focused on our lack of emphasis on the punishment put on Adam and the rest spelt out for Eve. We do our level best to overcome every single other point of the curse. But since we relish domination and holding power, etc. it seems we rather like the advantages we find in it. We somehow like to think of this one part of the curse as God's will that we should not go against.

If weeds gave us the same satisfaction we would let them grow and choke out our veggies and flowers. But we see nothing wrong in fighting against the curse of the thorns and thistles. The same for the pain in childbearing. We do not view it as God's perfect will to let women suffer during childbirth. We give them pain relief. And do we insist that men should do sweaty and painful manual labor to earn their daily bread? Of course not.

So why is only the part of the curse of sin putting men in dominion over women the only part that remains sacrosanct? Isn't all of sin to be overcome?