A Woman of Chayil: Far Above Rubies by Jane Carole Anderson

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hmmm, Adam didn't repent? Does that mean Adam went to hell?

Let's not carry this thing too far, Nell. Men and women each have their respective strengths, weaknesses and roles. Neither is fundamentally superior.

Igzy,

Eventually Adam repented. Jane has an excellent theory of how it happened in the book.

No argument here...neither is superior over the other. I don't believe I said that. I perhaps wasn't clear that Adam was unrepentant during the time frame of Gen. 3:12-16.

Women have been hindered in their/our walk with the Lord and our role in the Body of Christ due to inaccurate translations of a few verses in the Bible which firmly place Christian women in these subservient roles to Christian men. Let's see a show of hands of all the males who have been hindered in their roles as Christians because of domineering Christian women.

Nell

[Evangelical]

This "theory" about Adam repenting or not repenting sounds a lot like OBW recently said about Witness Lee "... taught a lot of things that were nowhere in the text. The were just his opinions.".

Let's consider the facts of what the bible actually says.

It says that instead of repenting, the first thing they did was hide from God and cover themselves up. They tried to hide their sin and cover it, not repent.

God is gracious towards them but this is likely due to His grace and mercy and not dependent upon their repentance. A person could construct an equally plausible theory about Adam and Eve's repentance:
God showed them grace and mercy despite them not having repented. Perhaps their feeling of guilt and regret as evidenced by them hiding from God and covering themselves, was enough for God to show mercy.

God covering them with sheepskin is to show God covering their sin, His grace and mercy, irrespective of whether they repented or not (they were saved by grace, not works).

We should keep in mind that the bible never mentions anything about Adam or Eve's repentance because the point of the story of Adam and Eve's transgression is to show us that all men have sinned, to point to Christ.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should keep in mind that the bible never mentions anything about Adam or Eve's repentance because the point of the story of Adam and Eve's transgression is to show us that all men have sinned, to point to Christ.

Perhaps repentance is not specifically mentioned, but they did bear (bare?) the shame of their sin, and the fear of God's judgment.

Later they did believe God's promise of a Savior yet to come. They saw the shed blood of an animal sacrifice, heard God's word, believed His promise, and were clothed with that sacrificial animal skin.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Perhaps repentance is not specifically mentioned, but they did bear (bare?) the shame of their sin, and the fear of God's judgment.

Later they did believe God's promise of a Savior yet to come. They saw the shed blood of an animal sacrifice, heard God's word, believed His promise, and were clothed with that sacrificial animal skin.

I believe as it was a case of deception and not a willful act of sin, God showed mercy and their blessing was not conditional upon their repentance. That is, Eve and Adam did not decide to rebel against God and eat the fruit. Eve was deceived by Satan, and she never takes the blame for that when she says:

"And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.".

[Nell]

Genesis 3:16 - The big lemon

Problem 1: Turning or Lust?
Problem 2: Is Woman Cursed?
Problem 3: Did God Mandate that Man Rule Over Woman?

Genesis 3:16 (KJV)
16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Nell

[aron]

Originally Posted by Nell

Let's see a show of hands of all the males who have been hindered in their roles as Christians because of domineering Christian women.

Let's see. . Aimee Semple McPherson, Elizabeth Clare Prophet, Patsy Freeman, Ellen G. White, Jesse Penn-Lewis. The first and the last of those both negatively impinged upon my walk. But really, what of it? Life goes on. Let go.

But what of it? I notice precious little talk here of Jesus Christ, merely Paul's advice in epistolic format. Where are the gospels? Did Jesus get so thoroughly effaced by Paul's word?

Jesus clearly ran the show. If he wanted to allow women into the inner circle of disciples, there they were. And there they were. Jesus was Roberts Rules of Order personified. "Whatever he tells you, do it", his mother told the servants. There were women all around, functioning. Yet not as the twelve. Why? Because of convention.

In this Paul echoed Jesus. The days and years, post-Pentecost, were full of tumult, often with no center. Paul wrote to the Corinthians, who tried to re-create pentecostal ferver with each meeting, shouting each other down. Paul tried to restore order. In this context, his writings on women come forth. Everybody was now free - slaves didn't have to obey the master, children were free from parents, married men could abandon their children and go off to preach the gospel. The last days were at hand. The kingdome of God was poured out, for all to see.

"God has raised this Jesus to life, to which we are all witnesses. Exalted, then, to the right hand of God, He has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear."

This overturned everything, as it should. Yet Paul desperately cautioned not to forget social convention. Slaves, women, children, fathers, all had to remember where they still were in society and not become dangerously unstable. In this he did echo Jesus, who was of all things an observant Jew.

Anyway, I haven't gotten to my point, which was to support Nell that there has been widespread systematized oppression. We should acknowledge this and repent. And secondly, to yet again raise the point that the movement of Nee started with women in the lead, yet 100 years later when women's rights have advanced, the "recovery" has clearly regressed, and become reactionary. It turns out that women were disposable, in the recovery. They served their purpose and then got abandoned when temporal power was amassed. Funny thing what power does to a man. (Or a woman.)