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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

1 Tim. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Yes. The woman was deceived. We know this because she confessed it to God. She admitted it. Ever since she confessed and obtained forgiveness, her words have been misused against her implying that Adam was some kind of hero because he “wasn’t deceived.” Does this mean that the woman sinned but the man didn’t? No. If Adam was not deceived, then he sinned willfully. In fact, this is the case. He knew not to eat of the tree and did it anyway. Eve was deceived by the serpent but she confessed and was forgiven. We know she was forgiven because the remainder of the Bible does not hold Eve accountable for the fall, but Adam. Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam (not Eve) to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's (not Eve's) transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

Where was Adam?
Gen. 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

So Adam was standing right there with Eve when she was deceived by the serpent. Why didn’t he stop her? Why didn't he rebuke the serpent? The disobedience might not have happened if Adam had done his job. Wasn’t he supposed to be her protector? Wasn’t Adam the caretaker of the garden? Instead, he did nothing…except disobey God and blame God and Eve for his own sin. Gen. 3:12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

We know Eve was forgiven, and blessed:
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all …
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

In other words, because the serpent deceived the woman, SHE will bring about his END. That is a blessing to womankind including ME.

Regardless, it is widely held that God cursed Eve. As a result, women have been insulted, persecuted, maligned, tortured, etc., especially throughout modern history. Why? Because the woman was “deceived?” Perhaps in the minds of the translators and/or men in general, but no. That's not it. Look at the bigger picture. It’s because of Satanic revenge…the serpent is out to destroy her BEFORE she destroys him! It’s because of the enmity God placed between the woman and the serpent. Why didn't God put enmity between Adam and the serpent instead of Eve? Perhaps because Adam was playing the blame game...unrepentant. God must have felt Eve was up to the task of destroying the Devil.

It would behoove men and women alike to understand that the woman is not the enemy…she was blessed. She is up to the task of destroying the enemy, that old serpent. In fact, at this point, the woman is actually the church. The Body of Christ comprised of all believers, both women and men who will bring about his final demise.

More is coming about the lemon 1 Tim. 2:8-15 in the next PDF.

Nell

Witness Lee taught that the woman met with Satan of her own decision, she stepped out of her covering (i.e. did not consult the man about Satan's suggestion). i.e. man not at fault, woman at fault. You have stated that man was with the woman. i.e. man at fault due to complicity, not exercising his headship.

Perhaps a bit of both? Woman did not ask her husband, and husband saw Eve talking to the serpent and did not think to intervene to protect her.

I believe the Answers in Genesis group present a good article about this matter:

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-c...o-the-serpent/

They consult a number of bible commentaries which seem to hold to a view that Adam was not with his wife:

e.g. John Calvin:

And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.


Of course Adam is at fault for taking the fruit at his wife's suggestion, and had ample opportunity to stop it there and then, no question about that.
But Eve is seen to be the one who was deceived in the first place.

Of course it does not help that all the bible commentaries are by men, and the answers in genesis folk are men. Gender bias is everywhere.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Witness Lee taught that the woman . . . .

Witness Lee taught a lot of things that were nowhere in the text. The were just his opinions.

And this coming from the man who claimed that everything except his teachings were just opinions. The guy was a shyster of the first degree.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

e.g. John Calvin:

And gave also unto her husband with her. From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.

Actually, based on the words in the text, it is much more credible that he was there than that he was not. It is all speculation and the only thing we have to go on it "to her husband with her" which puts him roughly there, not somewhere else.

Even John Calvin is subject to fits of opinion not base on actual evidence.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Actually, based on the words in the text, it is much more credible that he was there than that he was not. It is all speculation and the only thing we have to go on it "to her husband with her" which puts him roughly there, not somewhere else.

Even John Calvin is subject to fits of opinion not base on actual evidence.

Of course Adam was likely in the general vicinity, but probably he was not standing beside his wife while she spoke with the serpent.
Probably the likelihood of your opinion being wrong is greater than the likelihood of John Calvin, John Gill, Trapp, and other bible commentaries being wrong. That is, it is likely that you have misread the text or not understood its context. Unless, all of these men are so blinded by gender bias that they cannot correctly interpret the text. Witness Lee included. Witness Lee's view happens to agree with these men. So we could say that Witness Lee's view is the "orthodox" one on this matter.

The Bible teaches that the woman listened to the serpent, and the man listened to his wife. The man did not listen to the serpent, so he was not beside her when it happened.

Adam may or may not have been there, but the bible says clearly that he was not deceived:

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (1 Timothy 2:13–14).

Adam was not persuaded by Satan, he was not deceived. Perhaps Adam trustingly and innocently took the fruit from his wife and ate it. Being a good husband to eat "whatever his wife puts on the table", he ate it.

As indicated by verses 12 and 13 -Adam's fall was to take the fruit from his wife and eat it. And woman's fall was to be deceived by Satan:

12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.

13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

The woman's sin was to follow Satan, and the man's sin was to follow his wife.

To protect against this, God ordained that wife should follow her husband, because Eve was deceived, not Adam. This is the reason why women should not be in authority over men. This is one of the two reasons that Paul gives for not allowing a woman to have authority over a man:

1 Timothy 2:12-4 I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.

I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet.
For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

The first reason is because Adam was first and Eve was second. Eve was created as a helper and not to replace the role of Adam. This principle of being first also holds in the matter of parents and children. The parents come before the children so the children must be in subjection to the parents.

The second reason is because woman was deceived, not man.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Probably the likelihood of your opinion being wrong is greater than the likelihood of John Calvin, John Gill, Trapp, and other bible commentaries being wrong.

The point to be made in either case is that it is an opinion that is not drawn from the text, but read back onto it.

You are correct that 1 Timothy says that the man was not deceived. Rather he knowingly took of it without much concern. His wife had eaten and was still standing, so it must be OK.

Be he was with her. It is very doubtful that he was removed enough that he did not know the source of the fruit. Whether he heard the serpent, or just saw her take the fruit, he knew what he was eating. According to you, he didn't even have "the Devil made me do it" as an excuse. He just ate it without the appearance of a care or worry.

As for this particular text. It is not the only one in which Paul commented on women in the church. And the others do not universally support this particular "be silent" edict. That would tend to indicate that there was a particular reason for this comment that was not present in others.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The point to be made in either case is that it is an opinion that is not drawn from the text, but read back onto it.

You are correct that 1 Timothy says that the man was not deceived. Rather he knowingly took of it without much concern. His wife had eaten and was still standing, so it must be OK.

Be he was with her. It is very doubtful that he was removed enough that he did not know the source of the fruit. Whether he heard the serpent, or just saw her take the fruit, he knew what he was eating. According to you, he didn't even have "the Devil made me do it" as an excuse. He just ate it without the appearance of a care or worry.

As for this particular text. It is not the only one in which Paul commented on women in the church. And the others do not universally support this particular "be silent" edict. That would tend to indicate that there was a particular reason for this comment that was not present in others.

Probably the strongest proof that this edict was not due to cultural reasons or anything of a localized nature is Paul's appeal to the Creation story in Genesis to support his edict. He could have appealed to good manners, avoiding disturbing others, brotherly love, as reasons for silence. But he didn't. He went back to the creation as reasons why women should keep silent. That means it is a general and universal principle.

If it was because of local reasons then Paul would have appealed to common sense and good manners or brotherly love. Suppose there were some unruly women (or men) in a local church today, we would not say to them "please keep keep quiet because you (through Eve) were created after Adam and you were deceived, not Adam". We would say "please keep quiet because you are disturbing other people".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Probably the strongest proof that this edict was not due to cultural reasons or anything of a localized nature is Paul's appeal to the Creation story in Genesis to support his edict. He could have appealed to good manners, avoiding disturbing others, brotherly love, as reasons for silence. But he didn't. He went back to the creation as reasons why women should keep silent. That means it is a general and universal principle.

Or it means it is an example that is being used in this particular case. There is nothing magical about using it in a context that provides it with "general principle" status. Paul did not speak this way concerning women in other contexts. But here in writing to Timothy, who was still in Ephesus, he writes in this manner. There was something in Ephesus that needed this particular warning.

Remember. Paul did not speak the same thing in all places. He spoke to the issues that needed addressing.

And when you read the epistle that was later labeled as to Ephesus, you find that the submission was a two-way street. We were to submit to one another. Wives to husbands, and husbands to wives. No hierarchy of submission except that all submit to Christ.

[Cal]

Evangelical,

If women are to "keep silent" and that is a universal principle, how do you explain the LCM allowing women to testify in meetings? That's hardly keeping silent.

I can tell you the story Witness Lee told us. Nee was torn about this issue and finally decreed that there were too many riches in the sisters that were being denied the church by making them remain silent. He said they'd cut off 50% of the church from sharing. So they decided to allow them to speak.

My point is that there are several lenses to look at this thing through. Jesus himself never seemed to have a problem with women just for being women. I think there are some strengths and weaknesses of the genders we should be aware of, and that generally men should lead and set direction in the church and family. Women generally should support. But there are just too many blessed and helpful women's ministries which testify against your extreme interpretation.

As I said, in Paul's day teaching was not bible interpretation, it was saying you had a direct line from God. Teaching is different today. We don't have apostles. We have the word, and anyone can read it and interpret it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Remember. Paul did not speak the same thing in all places. He spoke to the issues that needed addressing.

And when you read the epistle that was later labeled as to Ephesus, you find that the submission was a two-way street. We were to submit to one another. Wives to husbands, and husbands to wives. No hierarchy of submission except that all submit to Christ.

This speaks to what I was getting at. First, look at context; don't assume a one-size-fits-all directive for all. Second, ask yourself how much the implementation moves away from the clear, repeated examples Jesus gave in both word and deed. As I once put it, it's too easy to use the letter of Paul to quench the Spirit of Jesus.

Slaves obey your masters. Still applicable in our workplace. We voluntarily indenture ourselves for payment, so the hierarchical rules still apply.

Obey the king. Other than the fact that we have a government of laws rather than persons, still applicable.

Obey one another. Obviously relevant, and coherent with Jesus' core message. (the first two Jesus didn't preach on but they can easily be assumed).

Children obey your parents. Still applicable. Shouldn't a two-year-old obey a 22-year-old mother? Or a 12-year-old obey a 35-year-old father? Even the unbelievers would think this still makes sense.

Women obey men ('be silent in church/obey your husbands etc'). This I think deserves very careful scrutiny. The times have changed. Paul was speaking to the time. Don't upset social convention in the name of our newfound freedom in Christ. This goes to the 'king' idea as well. Herod the despised may be on the throne. Oh well. "My kingdom is not of this earth".

This speaks to the Epistle to the Corinthians as well. Also the epistle to Timothy, and Jude's letter: libertines were coming in. Drunkards, sexually promiscuous, etc, saying, "The law is over", and "We are free in Christ" Paul was speaking to this. But guess what? 2,000 years have gone by and the context of freedom in social arrangements has changed.

I've said it several times but it bears about 50 more. Why did women start the Little Flock movement with Watchman Nee, and 100 years later, they can't speak from the podium? Women now can vote and run for president but they can't speak in front of a LC meeting. They have to be "covered by a brother". The letter of Paul has now been used to establish an controlling hierarchy of oppressive, reactionary old men, and those who'll submit to them and their system. Pft. Where is Jesus, here? Nowhere that I can see. Like the RCC. Hierarchy and control. Rigidity. "Order". No life. No freedom of the spirit.

Btw I'm not advocating a new group formation, or the 'emergent church' or ordination of women or any such thing. I'm simply saying let's respect the narrative, here. Let's look at it again, instead of saying, "Paul says 'x' ". Talk about dead letters. Again and again and again; look at Jesus over and over, and you'll see what Paul's spirit is addressing here. Paul didn't leave the Jesus he met on the road. Why should we?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Or it means it is an example that is being used in this particular case. There is nothing magical about using it in a context that provides it with "general principle" status. Paul did not speak this way concerning women in other contexts. But here in writing to Timothy, who was still in Ephesus, he writes in this manner. There was something in Ephesus that needed this particular warning.

Remember. Paul did not speak the same thing in all places. He spoke to the issues that needed addressing.

And when you read the epistle that was later labeled as to Ephesus, you find that the submission was a two-way street. We were to submit to one another. Wives to husbands, and husbands to wives. No hierarchy of submission except that all submit to Christ.

What about Corinth? That was written to a church.

The two-way street idea is false doctrine. There is no verse in the Bible which says "husbands should submit to wives". There is no two-way street between Christ and us, or between the husband and wife.

It says wives should submit to husbands, and both husbands and wives should submit to Christ. The order is Christ -> Husband,wife -> Wife.

There is also no verse which says a man should submit to another man's wife (or any woman).

The instructions to "submit to one another" are concerning love between brothers:

Romans 12:10
Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another;

BTW the confusion between gender roles in the church started around the same time that confusion around sexuality arose in the church. They are both from the same Jezebel spirit.