[OBW]

Just read through some of this thread for the first time

the ones where Paul says tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and then turns around and says that if unbelievers walked into a meeting and heard tongues they would think everyone was insane. Two totally contradictory irreconcilable statements.....and they get cleared up when read in this interpretation.

I think that context pretty much reconciles these without difficulty. It is evident that the first instance of tongues (Pentecost) was a very effective sign to the unbelievers. But it was because so many from other parts of the world heard these “locals” distinctly speaking their languages. However, the practice of the Corinthians was something else. Essentially everyone present — believer or otherwise — was Greek. The language being uttered was useless to them, therefore a confusion — unless there was someone there who either by knowledge of the language spoken or by gift from God, to translate for the benefit of those present. Their purpose would seem to be an utterance for the church, not for a sign to unbelievers, therefore a translator was necessary.

Effectively, the two statements about tongues are correct but are applicable in different circumstances. In effect, they are context-based, not universal truths that always apply absolutely (and therefore are in extreme contradiction).

So many of the verses related to women are similar. It starts all the way back at the curse that God put on both man and woman. The curse was not what was intended, but was a result of the disobedience. God basically told them how it would be. He didn’t say “because I will it or ordain it to be so.” But with the removal of his ever constant and near presence, the will of man who was now undertaking to decide good and evil for himself was the rule. I know it is not this simple in all aspects, but the idea that God simply forced thorns, thistles, painful childbirth, and unrighteous practices upon us is a misunderstanding of the whole of it all. Back in Post 16, Nell points to something Bushnell wrote that in very different words says much the same thing.

Then more recently 1 Peter 2:1–2 has been brought up.

Wives, in the same way, submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.

I had always heard this as an admonition for wives of unbelieving men to be more strident to behave in the manner expected at this particular place and time in history, not an edict about specific behavior for all time. There is almost no doubt that there are aspects of what is written concerning the human norms of the time that does not always simply “set them straight.” Here, the objective is not to direct how all women should be subservient to all men in all ways. It is a charge to be as righteous with respect to an unbelieving husband as possible (in the context of the “current” culture) so as to bear the image of Christ to them.

One of the best examples of this kind of thing is that of slavery. While scripture never completely excludes it as sin, it progressively insisted that it be undertaken in a righteous manner. And ultimately we began to see that righteousness in ways that were never imagined at the time of the writing of scripture.

It should ultimately be the same for women. Fallen man was extremely patriarchal. There is nothing much to say about it except that it was what was. And it made half of mankind into property. But over time that changed. It was not like 21st century America when Christ came, but it was already on a road there. Jesus did not exclude women. They were among some of his most ardent followers. It is true that he gave special teaching to the 12 — all men — but he was setting them up to lead the church from within a system of rabbis and synagogues, not female priests and ladies bible studies.

There are other examples. But we can point to some in our time who have labored dutifully within the bounds of complementarianism for years and finally deciding to break free of it. Beth Moore is the most recent in this trend. And it took the abject capitulation and near (or maybe literal) bowing to an immoral politician by the men to which she had been subjecting herself to finally wake her to the need to break free.

I think Trapped spoke correctly about Paul’s writing in 1 Cor 14. It is more like he was saying what others had said, then said “Huh? What are you talking about? This wasn’t just given to you men. It was delivered to us all.”

I will say one thing about the argument that the woman was not around when the edict concerning the eating of the plants was given. If you read Genesis 1 through 3, it is evident that there is a recursive telling of parts of the creation. And while the first pass is clearly in chapter 1, there is nothing that makes either chapter 2 or 3 a single pass through the story. For example, 2:5 states that there was no shrub or plant “for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground.” Yet the vegetation that bore seed and fruit was defined on the third “day” (1:11-12) while there remained no one to work the ground until “day” 6. Clearly, a problem if we need to read all of this as a literal story of a few days in length ending with mankind (in the form of two people) being driven out of the garden.

This brings a whole lot of possibilities into play here. Was there really a literal single first couple with no kids until this event we call the fall? Or is this account the way it is described to a group of people who had no definite history of their origins and were given this short story that encapsulated its truths without providing all the details? I’m not selling a watered-down bible or gospel. Just noting that none of it really hinges on whether these few chapters of Genesis were literal or figurative. It is functionally true and that is good enough. I will not reject God if it turns out he actually set a controlled evolution of sorts in motion. Neither will I sell it as obviously what happened. There is nothing obvious about any of it. We only have this very short story in days — or acts — that declares that God did it. And we messed it up. I think I get that no matter how the details played out.

My point is to say that whether the woman was or was not there is not clearly stated, and is probably irrelevant. The serpent asked whether God had said and she had enough knowledge to respond. And surely, the man, who was with her, did not object and freely ate. Laing blame at either or acting incensed about how someone phrases it is a little like the far left (politically) dismissing the far-right while the far-right simply dismisses the far left. Both are right and both are wrong (politically). And in this theological context, the blame is not the point. It is the recognition that there was a consequence to deciding to take on God’s job of defining good and evil. And this is probably the real sin. Not eating, but usurping God’s role. And we have been living out the consequences ever since. It is in the mistreatment of fellow humans due to race, gender, nationality, etc., among many other things.