Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women

Trapped · 03-20-2021, 11:37 PM

A while back I had to dig into some of the known cringey verses about women in the church....you know the "be silent, it's shameful for you to speak" ones. I know there are many people who have tripped over these verses, and in some cases they have been partly responsible for their leaving the faith.

I came across this simple, unassuming video on YouTube, and frankly......I've found it to be the absolute best explanation so far that 1) makes sense, 2) jives with other parts of scripture, 3) doesn't crush women, and 4) doesn't make me shut up my conscience to consider it as a real possibility.

What is additionally cool for me about this interpretation is that it also makes sense of a few verses that used to drive me up the wall......the ones where Paul says tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and then turns around and says that if unbelievers walked in to 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.

The video is about 20 minutes long, but I frankly think it's worth the time. She speaks slowly enough that you could probably play it on slightly faster speed and listen to it quicker.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRZQcuq70E

Curious about people's thoughts.

Trapped

countmeworthy · 03-21-2021, 08:48 AM

Great stuff Trapped. Much appreciate you sharing this video with us.
Sure cleared questions I had. Still not clear on the matter of “supernatural” tongues. Is it man made or not?

Another matter I struggle understanding is the “5 fold ministry” mentioned in Ephesians.. the one that names some apostles, some prophets, pastors, teachers etc....

It seems to me the clergy-laity system which God clearly hates was birthed from these scriptures. Would like thoughts on those passages too. Thanks

Nell · 03-21-2021, 10:18 AM

Yes! Good stuff, Trapped

Nell

Awoken · 03-22-2021, 11:48 AM

I did listen. I was kind of on board for the first section but definitely not when she got to 1 Timothy 2. My feeling is that she is REALLY stretching to make this interpretation about "the" woman and this supposed individual's erroneous commandments, which leads me to believe I should also be leery about her interpretation in the first part of the video.

I am actually really suspicious about inserting grammatical redefinitions of the meaning of the written word in this way. Just recently I visited (in person) with a pastor and his wife and we had a long chat about doctrinal heresy and false teachings, largely because I was relating to him my experience in the local churches. One of the things he pointed out to me by way of anecdote was that there was a false teacher he'd heard who twisted Scripture specifically by saying "if you just insert a comma here, it totally changes the meaning of the verse!". Keep in mind this conversation had absolutely no relation to this present forum post at all as this hadn't even been posted yet.

Another thing; Eve, who was deceived (not Adam), changed Scripture when the serpent tempted her: "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" That's not what God said - the additional material was inserted by Eve.

Sons to Glory! · 03-22-2021, 11:48 AM

Thanks much for sharing that, Trapped! Those verses were in my "set-aside" file . . . that is scripture I read that don't make good sense to me and I just set aside my understanding until the Lord chooses to give me light. But this seems to make pretty good sense, considering the full context of those passages!

We've been going through Colossians in my fellowship and have been looking more at what the Gnostic teachings were, so the last part did actually make better sense to me regarding those heretical teachings and how Paul was addressing them.

Nell · 03-22-2021, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awoken

Another thing; Eve, who was deceived (not Adam), changed Scripture when the serpent tempted her: "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" That's not what God said - the additional material was inserted by Eve.

So, Awoken. Which do you think is worse: Eve was deceived and she admitted it. This was her confession. Adam was not deceived...his disobedience was willful. He knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. He was standing beside Eve when she was being confronted by the serpent, but did nothing to rescue the woman from being deceived. Which is worse? Being deceived by the serpent, or willful disobedience?

Through the ages men point their fingers at Eve because she was deceived by the serpent, but Adam's willful disobedience somehow escapes their notice.

Nell

Awoken · 03-22-2021, 06:13 PM

Adam's willful disobedience was definitely worse. Nevertheless we also need to be careful not to be deceived.

Nell · 03-22-2021, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awoken

Adam's willful disobedience was definitely worse. Nevertheless we also need to be careful not to be deceived.

Nevertheless, we much more need to choose to obey God's commands and not point the finger at others' failures.

Nell

UntoHim · 03-22-2021, 07:54 PM

Hang on to yur hats saints....it looks like Paul's uncomfortable verses are even more uncomfortable 2,000 years later!

I wonder who was more uncomfortable reading Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 7)....the masters or the slaves? Think about it.

It's 2021 brothers and sisters...not 0021. God expects us...no...he demands that we interpret his Word within the scope and parameters of the time and culture that we find ourselves in.

You know who really needs to "keep silent"? Those of us who are decidedly ignorant of the historical/biblical connotations and implications of what the apostle Paul was writing down on those papyrus and parchment scrolls all those 20 centuries ago. Think about it. Study. Pray. Consider. Think some more. Study some more. Consider some more.
-

Awoken · 03-22-2021, 08:25 PM

Whose failure was I pointing at? The lady who is adding extra grammar to the Bible, or Eve's? And in which case would I be wrong? To at least call the action of the person drastically changing the meaning of Bible verses into question, or mentioning that there is a direct parallel to the failure of a certain Biblical character, which we do all the time for men? Hm.. can you think of some other threads where I have recently called male teachers into question? Witness Lee? Ravi Zacharias? Plenty of others.

I find your accusations rude and ungrounded and frankly I'm kind of hurt by the hypocrisy, and UntoHim's hurtful "next", I'm just garbage I guess, or fodder. I'm out of here for a while.

Awoken.

UntoHim · 03-22-2021, 09:40 PM

Sorry my friend Awoken. I removed the "Next?"

But I'm going to stick by this:

Quote:

Think about it. Study. Pray. Consider. Think some more. Study some more. Consider some more

Our sister Nell is looking at this from a women's point of view in 2021. Maybe the great apostle Paul would be in disagreement with her in the middle of the first century. I cannot say for sure. The apostle Paul was a man of his time. We are now men and women of our time. What was not uncomfortable to the men of 1st century Corinth may seem to be very uncomfortable to a women in the 21st century Western world.

What was very comfortable to Watchman Nee in early to mid 20th century China may now be very uncomfortable to our sisters/women/girls in the third decade of 21st century America.

I am not placing comfort above the Word of God. I am placing the Word of God within the understanding and realities of us mere mortals in 2021. In my experience and observation, Christian men have a tendency to be super-spiritual/scriptural at the cost of our dear Christian sisters. And then when it suits us, we become the most practical of creatures on earth, and expect our sisters to be the super-spiritual/scriptural ones. Funny how that works

Quote:

Think about it. Study. Pray. Consider. Think some more. Study some more. Consider some more

-

Nell · 03-23-2021, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Awoken

Whose failure was I pointing at? The lady who is adding extra grammar to the Bible, or Eve's? And in which case would I be wrong? To at least call the action of the person drastically changing the meaning of Bible verses into question, or mentioning that there is a direct parallel to the failure of a certain Biblical character, which we do all the time for men? Hm.. can you think of some other threads where I have recently called male teachers into question? Witness Lee? Ravi Zacharias? Plenty of others.

I find your accusations rude and ungrounded and frankly I'm kind of hurt by the hypocrisy, and UntoHim's hurtful "next", I'm just garbage I guess, or fodder. I'm out of here for a while.

Awoken.

You were pointing the finger at Eve's failure when she embellished the scripture.

Here are some interesting factoids about this subject:

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
...
22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
...
3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
...
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, the interesting part is that when "God commanded the man", the woman was not present. She had not even been "built". She did not hear God's command directly when He spoke it to Adam. So how did she know?

1. God told her directly--later.
2. Adam told her, repeating God's command accurately.
3. Adam told her but he embellished God's command.

Further, in Gen. 3:6, Adam was standing there "with her" watching the whole exchange between Eve and the serpent. He did nothing to rescue her or the situation.

Of course, none of these options changed the fact that she embellished the scripture or Eve's statement "I was deceived" but it is interesting to me that there is more to the story.

As for "Nevertheless we also need to be careful not to be deceived...", how do you do that? What does deceive mean?

Deceive: to persuade someone that something false is the truth, or to keep the truth hidden from someone for your own advantage.

This is what happened to Eve. "Someone" persuaded her that something false was the truth. So again, "Nevertheless we also need to be careful not to be deceived." Here's what Jesse Penn-Lewis says about that: "If you don't know the truth of a matter, don't form an opinion until you do know." I would add, don't speak with authority as though you know the truth of a matter when you don't...this is truly deceptive...you being deceived and deceiving others. This is good advice. Find out the truth before you opine about a topic. Or, discuss the matters which are taught as truths. Further, when you believe something that is not true, you don't do it on purpose. i.e., if you're deceived, you don't know it. If you consciously believe a lie, you are no longer deceived. At least, that's what I think. Aron might have some thoughts on this :-) !

We are all on this forum because we were deceived by the Serpent. We may not always express ourselves in the best manner possible, so we try to develop a thick skin and give each other the benefit of the doubt. But mostly, we desire to know the truth, which is the only antidote for deception.

Nell

PS: I hope you won't go away. You are valued as a forum member. Please forgive us for roughing you up a bit.

Sons to Glory! · 03-23-2021, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

We are all on this forum because we were deceived by the Serpent. We may not always express ourselves in the best manner possible, so we try to develop a thick skin and give each other the benefit of the doubt. But mostly, we desire to know the truth, which is the only antidote for deception.

Nell

PS: I hope you won't go away. You are valued as a forum member. Please forgive us for roughing you up a bit.

This reminds me of something a radio brother (Steve Gregg - I think he's mainly out west) said recently (I think he was quoting someone else). There was a question by a caller who asked, "If there is only one truth, then why are there so, so many interpretations of that one truth?" The answer was, "It's because while there is only one Truth, we are all coming to it from many different points. Therefore our perspective is often times quite different." I had never thought about it in these simple terms, but it just made so much sense to me. As Ephesians 4:13 says, "Until we all arrive at the oneness of the faith . . ."

So yes, we all need to give each other plenty of grace, when we don't see things the same way and therefore often step on each other's toes in the process! After all, we're just children (of the King), making lots of mistakes and learning as we go. Hopefully we learn to even give grace to those who might not show grace sometimes to us.

Nell · 03-23-2021, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

A while back I had to dig into some of the known cringey verses about women in the church....you know the "be silent, it's shameful for you to speak" ones. I know there are many people who have tripped over these verses, and in some cases they have been partly responsible for their leaving the faith.

I came across this simple, unassuming video on YouTube, and frankly......I've found it to be the absolute best explanation so far that 1) makes sense, 2) jives with other parts of scripture, 3) doesn't crush women, and 4) doesn't make me shut up my conscience to consider it as a real possibility.

What is additionally cool for me about this interpretation is that it also makes sense of a few verses that used to drive me up the wall......the ones where Paul says tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and then turns around and says that if unbelievers walked in to 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.
...
Trapped

Here is another perspective on Paul's uncomfortable verses about women, from Katherine Bushnell and her research of the matter.

To be sure, one should not carelessly assume that anything in the Bible is of exceptional and temporary import only. Yet we are now dealing with a personal letter, and advice given to one individual, and given in a time of exceptional peril, and these facts ought to count for a great deal. Again, while we should not thoughtlessly assume that the Bible is to be read in the light of *profane history, and corrected by it; nevertheless, the Bible, when carefully tested by well-known ancient customs or conditions set forth in reliable profane history, will be found to ring true to contemporary facts. We might have suffered a stagger to our faith in Paul’s tenderness and prudence, if not a stagger to our faith in the Bible, if, in a time of such supreme peril to Christian women, Paul could be represented as urging women to the front of the fight, and putting on them equal ecclesiastical responsibilities with men, when he knew that the cost to them would be far heavier than to men.

Rather, we find in Paul’s letter to Timothy precisely that sort of natural advice that a tender over-pastor under such conditions would give to one in charge of a church in his jurisdiction: “I should not allow a woman to teach or control a man. They (Roman adversaries of the day) are attacking our reputation for common decency, and we must meet it by separating the women from the men, and having them keep very quiet.”

All history testifies that women did not shirk martyrdom for Christ’s sake, but Paul says: “However willing they may be, I do not permit it. We men must take the lead: Adam was first formed, then Eve, and besides, Eve, being immature, got involved, unwittingly, in transgression through her immaturity and inexperience. So are our women immature and inexperienced; they do not even understand fully the terrible dangers that confront them.” Thus might the Apostle, who, ten years before, wrote to the Corinthians about women “praying and prophesying,” and to the Galatians about the same time, to the effect that there could be no distinctions as regards sex in the Christian body, now consistently write after this manner to Timothy, for he must have regard for the situation under Nero, and the relations of Christian to the social order about them. It seems to us far more sensible, then, to ascribe Paul’s precautionary advice to the then existent perilous times, especially for women, than to go back to Eve, or to creation to find a reason. God's Word to Women, by Katherine Bushnell, Lesson 42, Para. 326.

*Profane history: the history of secular affairs as opposed to Sacred history, which deals with the events in the Bible narrative.)

Nell

HERn · 03-23-2021, 08:59 PM

To me the fiasco of Adam failing Eve in her hour of need with the tree and the serpent shows that wives should ultimately look to and trust in their God rather than their husbands. Wives may be to their husbands as Christ is to His Father, but the Father never demanded anything from the Son, the Son freely submitted to His Father. Husbands can demand nothing from their wives. But where the wife freely offers her love and respect to her husband (who does not deserve it) there you will find a little bit of heaven on earth.

Nell · 03-24-2021, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

To me the fiasco of Adam failing Eve in her hour of need with the tree and the serpent shows that wives should ultimately look to and trust in their God rather than their husbands. Wives may be to their husbands as Christ is to His Father, but the Father never demanded anything from the Son, the Son freely submitted to His Father. Husbands can demand nothing from their wives. But where the wife freely offers her love and respect to her husband (who does not deserve it) there you will find a little bit of heaven on earth.

Good point, HERn. Bushnell agrees with you. Regarding Gen. 3:16:

Lesson 16, Para. 124: God spoke warningly to Eve at this time, telling her that she was inclining to turn away from Himself to her husband, and telling her that if she did so her husband would rule over her. The correct rendering of the next phrase of Genesis 3:16 is this: "Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,"—not as it has been rendered, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband."

God's Word to Women is available in .pdf format if you're interested. Fair warning: It's like gnawing a bone. Written in the writing style of her day in the early 1900's, you may find yourself with a dictionary. On the other hand, I really like its format: 100 Lessons with each paragraph numbered. Each lesson is only 2-3 pages long. One Lesson a day will get you through it in 2-3 years! :-)

Nell

aron · 03-24-2021, 07:39 AM

Certainly it's an important topic, one of the most important in the church today, and worth a lot of consideration. And this entry is also worth serious consideration.

My own take is this: it would be very helpful if the author of the video gave more information. There's the suggestion that Paul, a usually careful writer, makes a writing faux pas that causes 2,000 years of misunderstanding and oppression. Does Paul do this elsewhere? Or does he carefully couch inflammatory rhetoric that he disagrees with, in some kind of warning wrapper?

Romans 3:5,8 "But if our unrighteousness highlights the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict His wrath on us? I am speaking in human terms... Why not say, as some slanderously claim that we say, 'Let us do evil that good may result?' Their condemnation is deserved!" . Paul is willing to let other voices in, even those that he disagrees with, but he takes pains to show what is the correct interpretation and what is not. Can you imagine the damage that would occur if he mis-identified the voice in his letter to the Romans? Yet this is what's alleged, here.

Also, note what's not stressed in the quoted texts, labeled "Paul's 'new' teaching": the "submission" part. The quoted text not only says, "quiet" but says "submission". And that word isn't unknown in apostolic text. It's not a new teaching.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1 Peter Chapters 2 and 3

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

18 Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19 For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. 20 But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21 To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

22 “He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth.”

23 When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24 “He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” 25 For “you were like sheep going astray,” but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

1 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, 2 when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5 For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6 like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.

7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.

There's an extensive section on respecting earthly positions, and women's submission in 1 Peter 3:1 is part of a set that's consistent with the apostle's teaching. (Note also Paul in Ephesians 5). None of this is novel. So if the Corinthian leaders are abusing this apostolically-established relationship to wrongly silence women that's one thing, but the video passes over this without comment.

So my question is this: Are other sections of Paul not phrased well enough, such that translators historically misunderstand them as well as these two supposedly "new teachings"? Do any of Paul's contemporaries suffer the same problem - I think of Livy, Pliny, Josephus etc? How common was this misunderstood voice issue in the first centuries, writing in Koine Greek? If it's common with Paul and others, that's one thing. But if we can't see this issue elsewhere, of unclear and/or misunderstood voice in the text, then there's a challenge to overturn centuries of understanding. There must be some precedent for this argument; if it stands alone it stands weakly.

I don't say that I disagree, just that the author of the video doesn't give it the kind of support it needs. She spends a lot of time on extraneous stuff that isn't central to the argument. And then she doesn't sufficiently support the core argument.

Nell · 03-24-2021, 10:21 AM

Aron, my post #14 offers another perspective, quoting K. Bushnell. Can you please take a look?

Thanks-
Nell

Trapped · 03-24-2021, 08:57 PM

Awoken,

Donnnnnnnnnnn't leeeeeeeeave. Please. As Nell said, your contributions are valuable. Your voice is needed.

I actually mostly agree with your hesitation about the latter part of that video....the 1 Timothy 2 part. It is true that the greek doesn't say "the woman" versus "a woman".....it's just "woman". But I see her interpretation about that particular set of verses as "huh....that could be" or "never thought about that possibility before" or "interesting interpretation". I'm not so convinced that I would say "that is now how I view those verses!"

But I think I would separate my conclusions about the latter part from the first part about Corinthians. Listening to the first part, I DO see plenty of grounds for what the video says to be possible. For example:

-it makes no sense for Paul to say women should be silent, but also make positive reference to the "whole church" coming together and prophesying or speaking in tongues. That's not silent.

-it makes no sense for Mary and the other women at the tomb to go out and tell of Jesus's resurrection, for the other accounts of female co-workers, of important females in the church to be shown as having impact to grow the church.....and yet they've got to shut up when they return to gather with the church? Chloe had the church in her home but had to zip her lips?

-as the person in the video mentioned, in 7:1, Paul does say "now to the matters you wrote about" and there are indeed Bible commentaries that acknowledge that the next part ("it is good for a man not to touch a woman") could reasonably be a quote from the letters Paul received that he was quoting in response. I don't see it a stretch at all for there to be continued quotes afterward too.

-honestly it is strange that the Bible speaks of all kinds of positions and functions and gifts and roles and the equality of all the members, each having a connection to the Head, each being the many brothers of Jesus, each being in the priesthood.....and then Paul smacks half of them across the face and tells them to can it because they are female? It just doesn't jive.

-as I said in my OP, the portion related to tongues and unbelievers was also similarly strange. Didn't fit together. When you realize one was the false teaching, and one was Paul's correction of it - what was formerly nonsensically irreconcilable by basic logic all of a sudden fits perfectly. And that part has nothing to do with women.

I have differing thoughts about the 1 Timothy part that I think are reasonable but are not mentioned in the video at all. Paul is showing pretty clearly that the women are learning....and if someone is learning, it's very normal that you wouldn't want them teaching yet. He doesn't say "Let the women worship in silence" or "sit in silence" or "meet in silence" but LEARN in silence. There's more I could say but am short on time.

Anyway, just my thoughts. I reiterate - please stick around.

Trapped

Trapped · 03-24-2021, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

Also, note what's not stressed in the quoted texts, labeled "Paul's 'new' teaching": the "submission" part. The quoted text not only says, "quiet" but says "submission". And that word isn't unknown in apostolic text. It's not a new teaching.

There's an extensive section on respecting earthly positions, and women's submission in 1 Peter 3:1 is part of a set that's consistent with the apostle's teaching. (Note also Paul in Ephesians 5). None of this is novel. So if the Corinthian leaders are abusing this apostolically-established relationship to wrongly silence women that's one thing, but the video passes over this without comment.

aron, would you be able to point more specifically to what part(s) of the video you are referring to? I'm trying to find it but am having trouble finding it and following your train of thought too.

Ephesians 5 speaks of wives submitting to their husbands, yes. It also speaks of husbands sacrificing themselves by laying down their life for their wife. Submission for one, sacrifice for the other!

UntoHim · 03-25-2021, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

To me the fiasco of Adam failing Eve in her hour of need with the tree and the serpent shows that wives should ultimately look to and trust in their God rather than their husbands. Wives may be to their husbands as Christ is to His Father, but the Father never demanded anything from the Son, the Son freely submitted to His Father. Husbands can demand nothing from their wives. But where the wife freely offers her love and respect to her husband (who does not deserve it) there you will find a little bit of heaven on earth.

Great post HERn!

"A little bit of heaven on earth". Isn't that what we strive for? Isn't this what the church should be? In the Local Church we were taught that marriage is a figure or picture of Christ and the church - Just as Christ gave of himself and sacrificed for the church, a husband should give of himself and sacrifice for his wife. And in return, the wife loves her husband and lovingly submits.

Ah, such a beautiful thing! Such a scriptural thing! In a perfect world. And in a perfect world godly men lead and shepherd the church. In a perfect world godly women are lead and shepherded by these godly men, and when this takes place all is well in the church, in the church life, in the home life and even in society in general. In a perfect world.

If God is nothing else, he is very pragmatic. I think he is very well aware of those uncomfortable verses written by the apostle Paul. Of course he is, he inspired them after all. Yet being a pragmatist, God will not let "the perfect become the enemy of the good". Don't believe me? Read church history. Read the Bible. Actually God was willing to change his mind from time to time. He was willing to adjust. He was even willing to bargain at times. Did he have to change his mind? Of course not. Did he have to adjust or bargain? Of course not. But the fact is that he did. History tells us this. The Bible tells us this.

This post is getting too long. Rap it up Unto!

To my Christian brothers: Please do not expect our Christian sisters to be held to the letter of a law that we are either unwilling or unable to keep ourselves. Let us not make our Christian sisters live in a perfect world that we are either unwilling or unable to make for them and their children. When Christian men leave a leadership vacuum, the vacuum will be filled by someone else or something else. Would we rather see this vacuum filled by godly Christian women or something else?

I have more to say. I have some verses. Enough for now.
-

aron · 03-25-2021, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

aron, would you be able to point more specifically to what part(s) of the video you are referring to? I'm trying to find it but am having trouble finding it and following your train of thought too.

In the first 45 seconds of the video it quotes 1 Cor 14:34, which says "be in submission" and 1 Timothy 2:11,12 it says "full submission". Yet the parts in question are bolded in red and the "submission" part is never mentioned. Yet the word submission is not a new teaching of Paul, and is shared by Peter, as I showed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Ephesians 5 speaks of wives submitting to their husbands, yes. It also speaks of husbands sacrificing themselves by laying down their life for their wife. Submission for one, sacrifice for the other!

Yes there is reciprocity but the unequal temporal power structure is retained. Slaves are to obey masters and masters should be kind to slaves, but they are still masters and slaves. Wives still need to obey, submit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Aron, my post #14 offers another perspective, quoting K. Bushnell.

I took this position here on this forum some time back. I said that Paul was making concessions to the age, that others would not be stumbled by the liberty that Christians enjoyed. Current social conventions needed to be acknowledged, until the Lord returns.

Paul said, "Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall." It's not about eating or abstaining, but not stumbling others.

Secondly, Paul said, "There is no slave nor free" then said, "Slave obey your master". He wasn't contradicting himself. One was a statement of fact. The second was a concession to temporary order. Paul's word to women was the same. They were his equals, his peers. Yet because of the time - remember that women were "chattel" then, with no human rights - he was advising them not to stumble others with their newfound place in the Kingdom of God.

Yet this was not the argument of the video. I was critiquing the presentation, and its lack of support.

Awoken · 03-25-2021, 03:43 PM

I just needed some time to deal with being offended. Sometimes I can be a bit thin-skinned, all is forgiven, and thanks UH and Nell for the kind words. I might pipe back in on this one later after I've had some time to mull it over - grace,

Awoken

Curious · 03-25-2021, 09:39 PM

Interesting conversation on tricky issues. I have loved to learn this perspective that is put forward on this thread. I too struggle with all the verses above, and getting a grasp on God's true intention for the relationship between man and woman.

I can't see how the quality of a person's contribution should be less important than their gender, for example, Corrie Ten Boon's famous exchange with the ex-Nazi officer as she gave him communion. This testimony has become famous, and has been powerfully effective to many people, for many years. It was her struggle as a human being in ways that relate to us all, male, female and anything in between. It just feels 'religious' to reject a powerful testimony based on a person's gender.

But then what to do with Paul's instructions? So, I for one am very intrigued with this new perspective, and I do think the grammar creates sense from otherwise confusing and self- contradictory passages. It's something to pray about and wrestle with, as Untohim has advised. No-one is forcing anyone to make a snap judgement on it.

Thanks Trapped, for sharing it. I have already passed it on to my own friends. A very interesting offering.

.... In my own recent thoughts on this matter generally, I have been wondering, if what God said to Eve, 'your husband will rule over you' could be extended to mean: the more powerful will rule over the weaker, power will dominate and exploit vulnerability in others, were opportune. The overall dynamic will be changed from strength nurturing the smaller, physically inferior party, to, strength will now take advantage, and prey on for its own benefit, at the cost of the weaker, subjected one or subjected group.

2 reasons I wonder about this:

1. There were only 2 humans at the time this change happened. At the time of 'the fall' where God's image became marred in his beings, and something of the nature of His opposite manifested, there were only two human beings. The expression of this dynamic could only at that time that it entered, relate to those two as there were no groups of people existing yet.

2. The propensity holds true that it is not just man that exploits woman, but it explains slavery, class systems, child abuse, and every exploitation of the poor or vulnerable or disadvantaged that has plagued our world ever since. And all such exploitation and abuse stands aside from every action, demonstration and teaching of Jesus.

So those are my ideas, to further confuse the whole discussion! I'm interested in the input of others. Feel free to comment!!

HERn · 03-25-2021, 10:30 PM

Adam could have chosen to intercede for his God-given partner, instead he chose death.

https://www.deidrehavrelock.com/eve/2typesofsin/

Sons to Glory! · 03-26-2021, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

Adam could have chosen to intercede for his God-given partner, instead he chose death.

https://www.deidrehavrelock.com/eve/2typesofsin/

I'm thinking he was just so taken by her, attracted by her, etc. Woman have powerful influences over men in many different ways. I know logically he should have done that, but he probably wasn't thinking straight and his emotions took over. I suspect Satan knew exactly what he was doing in enticing Eve first - as the article says, going for her mind/thoughts.

Awoken · 03-26-2021, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

You were pointing the finger at Eve's failure when she embellished the scripture.

(...)

Further, in Gen. 3:6, Adam was standing there "with her" watching the whole exchange between Eve and the serpent. He did nothing to rescue her or the situation.

Okay, coming back to this; I agree that men have mishandled church affairs and just plain human affairs for thousands of years. I also agree with others who noted that it is Biblical for women to step into leadership roles when there is a failure on the part of men to do the same, and that has also played out in history as well (Corrie Ten Boom being a great example). Yes, God is pragmatic and - no doubt - in the resurrection, as Jesus plainly told the Sadducees, they won't marry nor be given in marriage but will be like the angels. And further in Christ, spiritually, I believe there is already no distinction between male/female, as Galatians 3:28 says plainly. At best the temporal inequalities that men presently enjoy are just that, temporal, and it would be wisest for us (meaning us men) to sacrifice them for the benefit of others and care for them rather than lording it over anyone. I think the other posts up above noting the same, by other posters, are spot on.

On the other hand I am not "men", I am just a man. And while people mistake each others' intentions all the time, both because we can be self-deceived and because we deceive others, God is the knower of the hearts and intentions and all is laid bare before Him.

So, possibly I was wrongly accusing "Eve" (a Biblical figure). Maybe this is revealing of my own prejudices.

However, what I find ironic is that, God knows, my motivation in pointing out my sense of wariness about parts of this interpretation was not because I wanted to blame women for the mistakes of all humanity. It is because I wanted to warn my fellow believers about what I perceive(d) to be a potential misstep or deception, so you are actually reprimanding me for doing the exact thing you say that Adam failed at doing when it came to his relationship with Eve. Or, another good example that has nothing to do with the male/female dynamic is Cain's accusatory response to God - "Am I my brother's keeper?" Yes, obviously, we are, whether male or female. Hope that helps to clear up my anger. I am not saying I was 100% right, just stating my motivation - and the Lord knows I am telling the truth.

Grace -
Awoken.

aron · 03-26-2021, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curious

The propensity holds true that it is not just man that exploits woman, but it explains slavery, class systems, child abuse, and every exploitation of the poor or vulnerable or disadvantaged that has plagued our world ever since. And all such exploitation and abuse stands aside from every action, demonstration and teaching of Jesus.

I think this is very important actually and we can't deal with the oppression of women issue out of wider context of power imbalance, oppression, alienation, exploitation, violence and so forth. "Widows, orphans, prisoners, sick" etc. The have-nots, the despised of society were Jesus' sheep: drunkards, tax collectors, cripples, lepers. Those with no voice, no power, no place of honour.

Certainly women were categorically have-nots. In this Jesus brought a revolution, both to the oppressors (who were themselves actually unwitting slaves to an oppressive system) and those they formerly hurt. Somehow everyone could forgive, be forgiven, could give and not take, could care for the careless and love the loveless. It's really an extraordinary and breathtaking kingdom, never seen and to me even undreamt-of outside of Jesus Christ. It's a 'utopia' that's potentially as near and real as your nearest neigbour.

Consider Jesus' word, "Whoever lusts after a woman has committed adultery." (Matt 5:27,28). Notice in this case it's men that are implied as the transgressors. Not because women are by contrast pure and chaste, but rather because of unequal power structure, men can openly ogle and leer as long as they don't touch. Jesus shut that option down.

Etc. There's a lot to discuss but I'm unqualified, yet still glad to see the discussion taking place. (And I do agree that the words of Paul that were raised in the video don't 'fit' the overall NT picture. But a better case needs to be made)

Nell · 03-26-2021, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I'm thinking he was just so taken by her, attracted by her, etc. Woman have powerful influences over men in many different ways. I know logically he should have done that, but he probably wasn't thinking straight and his emotions took over. I suspect Satan knew exactly what he was doing in enticing Eve first - as the article says, going for her mind/thoughts.

It's gross that you would make excuses for Adam.

Nell

Sons to Glory! · 03-26-2021, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

It's gross that you would make excuses for Adam.

Nell

Oh that's rich!

Trapped · 03-26-2021, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

Adam could have chosen to intercede for his God-given partner, instead he chose death.

https://www.deidrehavrelock.com/eve/2typesofsin/

Interesting article. I read it once during a break at work but need to read it again to comment extensively on it. There's a lot there!

I guess my first question (and this is just discussion, not pushback) is can we actually call Eve's act "unintentional sin"? She was deceived, to be sure, but the record is clear that she knew she wasn't to eat of the tree ("or touch"). She knew what the wrong was, and yet she took of it, under the deceptive influence from the serpent. This is different from "I didn't know!" or not being aware of a law or commandment. She wasn't ignorant of the command.

I need to think more about what more parts of the Bible have to say about intentional vs unintentional sin. That concept may hold true in general, (and it certainly would explain the "sin unto death, sin that does not lead to death" verses that have confounded me in 1 John 5), but I am having trouble with Eve's act being categorized as "unintentional". Even the verse quoted in the article clearly states "...the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Transgression still took place.

Does the ignorance plea work for us today? I was kind of under the impression it doesn't. For example, someone driving 55 in a 30mph zone who didn't know it was a 30mph zone still gets a ticket for breaking the law and speeding, even if they didn't see the sign to know the speed limit. Just thinking out loud trying to work this thought through.

It's a new thought for me that Adam could have interceded for Eve in front of God. Although, as a fellow transgressor, would he have had the "standing" to do so? Yes, Moses interceded before God, but he was not co-guilty when he did so, right? It would have been nice to see an attempt at intercession rather than his blatant throwing of his wife under the bus - "it was the woman you gave me!".

I always thought that Adam was responsible for death entering man because when Eve sinned, then Adam was the sole holdout who hadn't yet sinned. And if he didn't sin, then there was some of mankind that wasn't under death yet. But then when he sinned, the only remaining door was opened, and he was responsible for death entering, and that's why he's blamed for it all. Sounds funny when I write it - not sure my thought there holds up scripturally........

Trapped

Trapped · 03-28-2021, 09:29 PM

Not sure how well I can explain this, but in re-reading 1 Corinthians, I noticed just how much Paul uses the "mocking rhetorical question" device. He often uses it right after something mock-worthy.

For example:

-beginning of chapter 3 when he challenges them as "are you not mere human beings?" for their contention about Paul vs Apollos.
-beginning of chapter 4 when he challenges them about being puffed up or boasting.
-beginning of chapter 5 when he gets on their case for being proud about the sexual immorality among them, rather than driving the guy out of the church.
-and numerous other places too.

Including at the end of chapter 14 right after the "women be silent" portion where he then challenges them "did the word of God originate with you? or are you the only people it has reached?"

This might lend a little support to the thought that the "women must be silent, it is disgraceful for them to speak, etc" concept is mock-worthy.

Just thinking out loud.

Awoken · 03-29-2021, 11:15 AM

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

I AGREE

Awoken · 03-29-2021, 01:01 PM

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.

I AGREE

Awoken · 03-29-2021, 03:07 PM

I feel both of the above are healthy teaching (although the first might be a little easier on the ears than the second).

Jesus said “many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first”. It might be of some encouragement to consider that whatever we are in this temporary life, if we believe God's word and act accordingly, He will reward us accordingly - and those who are in lesser positions now and who are obedient will, perhaps very likely, be greater in the things that come after.

OBW · 03-29-2021, 08:25 PM

Just read through some of this thread for the first time

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Paul Vusik · 03-21-2022, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

So, Awoken. Which do you think is worse: Eve was deceived and she admitted it. This was her confession. Adam was not deceived...his disobedience was willful. He knew what he was doing was sin, but he did it anyway. He was standing beside Eve when she was being confronted by the serpent, but did nothing to rescue the woman from being deceived. Which is worse? Being deceived by the serpent, or willful disobedience?

Through the ages men point their fingers at Eve because she was deceived by the serpent, but Adam's willful disobedience somehow escapes their notice.

Nell

Nell,

I was reading through pretty much all the threads that were previously posted here on this forum, and what cut my eye was few posts that were made by some members (which I don’t see them posting anymore), but I saw this post here and wanted to see if you can clarify something. Is there anywhere in the Bible that there is a verse that confirms that Adam was present at the time when serpent tempted Eve? Gen 3:6? Or where?
If that’s the case, then why did God say that Adam is cursed because he listed to his wife in 3:17, and not the serpent? Notice the Eve never mentioned that the serpent deceived “us”, if they were together at the time, she said he deceived “me”. Then why Paul says that Eve was decived first. So I’m interested how did you get to this conclusion.

I’m not by the way defending what Adam did or didn’t do, it just the conclusions that make you do a double take on things now days.

Thanks

Nell · 03-22-2022, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Nell,

I was reading through pretty much all the threads that were previously posted here on this forum, and what cut my eye was few posts that were made by some members (which I don’t see them posting anymore), but I saw this post here and wanted to see if you can clarify something. Is there anywhere in the Bible that there is a verse that confirms that Adam was present at the time when serpent tempted Eve? Gen 3:6? Or where?

Yes. There is a verse that confirms that Adam was present when the serpent tempted Eve. You referenced it. Genesis 3:6.

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.

Quote:

If that’s the case, then why did God say that Adam is cursed because he listed to his wife in 3:17, and not the serpent? Notice the Eve never mentioned that the serpent deceived “us”, if they were together at the time, she said he deceived “me”. Then why Paul says that Eve was decived first. So I’m interested how did you get to this conclusion.

"If" that's the case? It seems clear that Adam was with her. Where did God say that Adam is cursed because he listened to his wife? Verse please.

Paul says that the woman was deceived first because she was. Although, it has been speculated that for Adam to stand and watch his wife disobey God and eat the fruit without protecting her, then eat the fruit himself, he may have already been under the influence of the serpent...that is...the fall.

Was the woman obligated to use certain verbiage? "Us", etc.? As is appropriate, the woman spoke for herself. She didn't presume her husband's deception.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Adam was not deceived, yet he disobeyed God. If Adam was not deceived, he made a choice to disobey God.

Also, please show us the verse that says God cursed Adam because he listened to his wife. In v. 14 God cursed the serpent and in v. 17, God cursed the ground. Where is the verse that says God cursed Adam?

More significant perhaps than Adam listening to his wife, I believe, is that even though he was not deceived, Adam disobeyed God. Eve admitted she was deceived, but Adam did not. Adam instead blamed God. This is possibly why God held Adam responsible for his deception. By admitting or confessing she was deceived, the woman obtained forgiveness.

What is the relevence of the woman being deceived first? Other than the fact of the matter, what does it mean? Adam revealed his condition when he didn't help his wife, he disobeyed God, then he blamed God but never admitted to his sin.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 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.

The serpent was cursed.

Gen. 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

The ground was cursed.

Quote:

I’m not by the way defending what Adam did or didn’t do, it just the conclusions that make you do a double take on things now days.
Thanks

Your conclusions need some scrutiny also...

Nell

Paul Vusik · 03-22-2022, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Yes. There is a verse that confirms that Adam was present when the serpent tempted Eve. You referenced it. Genesis 3:6.

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.

"If" that's the case? It seems clear that Adam was with her. Where did God say that Adam is cursed because he listened to his wife? Verse please.

Paul says that the woman was deceived first because she was. Although, it has been speculated that for Adam to stand and watch his wife disobey God and eat the fruit without protecting her, then eat the fruit himself, he may have already been under the influence of the serpent...that is...the fall.

Was the woman obligated to use certain verbiage? "Us", etc.? As is appropriate, the woman spoke for herself. She didn't presume her husband's deception.

1 Timothy 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Adam was not deceived, yet he disobeyed God. If Adam was not deceived, he made a choice to disobey God.

Also, please show us the verse that says God cursed Adam because he listened to his wife. In v. 14 God cursed the serpent and in v. 17, God cursed the ground. Where is the verse that says God cursed Adam?

More significant perhaps than Adam listening to his wife, I believe, is that even though he was not deceived, Adam disobeyed God. Eve admitted she was deceived, but Adam did not. Adam instead blamed God. This is possibly why God held Adam responsible for his deception. By admitting or confessing she was deceived, the woman obtained forgiveness.

What is the relevence of the woman being deceived first? Other than the fact of the matter, what does it mean? Adam revealed his condition when he didn't help his wife, he disobeyed God, then he blamed God but never admitted to his sin.

14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 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.

The serpent was cursed.

Gen. 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

The ground was cursed.

Your conclusions need some scrutiny also...

Nell

Genesis 3:17
King James Version
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Paul Vusik · 03-22-2022, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

The ground was cursed.
Nell

You are correct that the ground was cursed, not Adam. The reason that I wanted to ask a question about it, was that’s the first time over my almost 40 years that I listen to sermons I heard that statement being made. The point about this whole discourse was just clarifying if Adam was present at the time when the serpent approached Eve, in Gen 3:1.

I don’t believe he was, if you read the whole chapter in context and other references to it in the Bible, some of which you mentioned.

Trapped · 03-22-2022, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

You are correct that the ground was cursed, not Adam. The reason that I wanted to ask a question about it, was that’s the first time over my almost 40 years that I listen to sermons I heard that statement being made. The point about this whole discourse was just clarifying if Adam was present at the time when the serpent approached Eve, in Gen 3:1.

I don’t believe he was, if you read the whole chapter in context and other references to it in the Bible, some of which you mentioned.

While I disagree with you, because I think it's pretty clear that Adam was with her given that the verse literally says "...to her husband who was with her..." rather than something like "...to her husband who had just returned from tending to a portion of the garden", I can see that we are not forced to conclude Adam was there when the serpent was there.

However, in reading the verses, even if someone thinks Adam was not there when the serpent was there (which seems plainly obvious, but is not stated explicitly), it DOES seem like, at a minimum, Adam was there when Eve ate the fruit, would you agree there, or no?

I just went through and read numerous commentaries on this verse, Genesis 3:6. The amount of people who say things like, "there's no way Adam could have been there otherwise he obviously would have spoken up against the serpent's lies" and also say things like, "see how Eve wanted to bring Adam into her sin and she lead him into it? We will never know if Adam was wilfully sinning or not"....is a little sad. It's amazing that what are supposed to be impartial BIBLE commentaries read all the best, noble intent into Adam and all the worst, evil intent into Eve.

Trapped

Nell · 03-22-2022, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

You are correct that the ground was cursed, not Adam. The reason that I wanted to ask a question about it, was that’s the first time over my almost 40 years that I listen to sermons I heard that statement being made. The point about this whole discourse was just clarifying if Adam was present at the time when the serpent approached Eve, in Gen 3:1.

I don’t believe he was, if you read the whole chapter in context and other references to it in the Bible, some of which you mentioned.

How do you explain the obvious in Genesis 3:6? “and gave also unto her husband with her;”?

Nell

Nell · 03-22-2022, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

…It's amazing that what are supposed to be impartial BIBLE commentaries read all the best, noble intent into Adam and all the worst, evil intent into Eve.

Trapped

My amazement as well!!! Even though Paul holds Adam responsible.

Nell

UntoHim · 03-22-2022, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

(It) is a little sad. It's amazing that what are supposed to be impartial BIBLE commentaries read all the best, noble intent into Adam and all the worst, evil intent into Eve.

Here is something I posted exactly one year ago today (Around the time the thread was started by Trapped). Now, one year later, and taking into consideration the back and forth here today, I feel even stronger about what I posted a year ago.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim 3/22/2021

Hang on to yur hats saints....it looks like Paul's uncomfortable verses are even more uncomfortable 2,000 years later!

I wonder who was more uncomfortable reading Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 7)....the masters or the slaves? Think about it. It's 2021 brothers and sisters...not 0021. God expects us...no...he demands that we interpret his Word within the scope and parameters of the time and culture that we find ourselves in. You know who really needs to "keep silent"? Those of us who are decidedly ignorant of the historical/biblical connotations and implications of what the apostle Paul was writing down on those papyrus and parchment scrolls all those 20 centuries ago. Think about it. Study. Pray. Consider. Think some more. Study some more. Consider some more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim 3/22/2021

Our sister Nell is looking at this from a women's point of view in 2021. Maybe the great apostle Paul would be in disagreement with her in the middle of the first century. I cannot say for sure. The apostle Paul was a man of his time. We are now men and women of our time. What was not uncomfortable to the men of 1st century Corinth may seem to be very uncomfortable to a women in the 21st century Western world. What was very comfortable to Watchman Nee in early to mid 20th century China may now be very uncomfortable to our sisters/women/girls in the third decade of 21st century America. I am not placing our comfort above the Word of God. I am placing the Word of God within the understanding and realities of us mere mortals in 2021. In my experience and observation, Christian men have a tendency to be super-spiritual/scriptural at the cost of our dear Christian sisters. And then when it suits us, we become the most practical of all creatures on earth, and expect our sisters to be the super-spiritual/scriptural ones. Funny how that works.

As for who did what and when, the bottom line is covered quite clearly and succinctly in Romans 5:12
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned
-

Ohio · 03-22-2022, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

It's amazing that what are supposed to be impartial BIBLE commentaries read all the best, noble intent into Adam and all the worst, evil intent into Eve.

Perhaps a little writer bias there?

Personally I think it's safe to assume there are no victims In Gen 3.

Paul Vusik · 03-25-2022, 04:52 PM

I think that it’s very simple to read that and say, “he was there”. Plain and simple! Black on white, right? Well, I don’t see it that way, and not because I can’t read plain text, it’s because you have to start reading in Gen 3:1. You have to read the whole story, the whole account of what happened from the beginning to the end, and not just rip out the 3 words out of the whole chapter to make a decision.
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
1. The account here starts by stating “subtil” and “said unto a woman”. If as you say that they were together at this point, would this be stated as such? Why would it not say that he “said unto them”? Why did he had to be subtil? And why did he not go for Adam, if he was there? And if as Paul says Adam wasn’t deceived, how come Adam didn’t say anything because he had clear mind and knew exactly the words that God said???
2. The second issue is that the case can be made that Adam was not even aware of the conversation between the serpent and Eve! Because based on the responses he gave to Lord God, in subsequent verses, show no indication that he was. The answers that he gave, were to blame God for the woman, and blame woman for giving him the fruit. No mention of serpent whatsoever! He could have and would have done exactly the same as Eve did by blaming the serpent if he was present at the time of the event in Gen 3:1. The idea that he was under some kind of delusion of sorts and stood there like a frozen statue, is just ridiculous! And also as Paul said, Adam was not deceived, indicating that if they both were there at the time, he would not be able to state so.
3. Was he there with her when they took of the tree and ate it? Yes 100%. He was standing next to her, while she took the lead and gave it to him.
4. Why I believe Adam is accountable for the fall is very simple:
A. The commandment was given to a man, Adam in Genesis 2, ALONE, and not to the woman.

B. It was Adam that was to be a lead of this union and not Eve, and give instructions to her about it.
God didn’t come back and reiterated it to the woman, after He created her at the end of Gen 2.

C. Romans 5, states that sin entered the world through Adam, or man. Adam failed on two fronts:
1). As I mentioned above, when God put him in the garden, he gave him instructions and commandments in Gen 2. It was totally up to Adam to take care and inform his wife about what God said. He failed with his responsibility first to his wife.
2). Once he failed that, which by the way can be determined by the way the woman answered the question of the serpent, he was no longer the one giving instructions in Gen 3:6, which led to an even bigger sin to disobey God. His answer to God, by blaming God and the woman, tells you all you need to know, about who was in charge at that time.
Serpent went to Eve, and did exactly the same as what he already have done in the past, by wanting to be “equal”. Adam, failed to be the man, not only to God, but also to his wife, so serpent used the occasion and told the woman basically, to step out and make a decision on her own, and the offer of “you will be like god”, sealed that deal. She had a role and that role was to be a helper, but as soon as Adam failed and left a void, by abandoning his responsibility to his wife, it was quickly filled by her, with the help of the serpent.

Lastly,
I believe that the New Testament explains the Old Testament, therefore when Paul says in 1 Tim 2, “13*For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14*And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”, he confirms what has been in place, or the order since the creation began in Gen 2.
Unfortunately, what’s going on in our egalitarian society has bled into the churches at such rapid pace, especially in the western world, that even bringing up this subject is considered a taboo of sorts. All these man, that at one time held to certain Biblical principles, have become infatuated with social aspects of progress, that Bible needs to fit the current times, rather than in reverse. I’d be willing to put my house down, that if Paul spoke today, his comments would be much more offensive than it was then,(especially to man), based on the current condition of the church.

The problem today is with man more than with woman, just as it was then. The man fail to fulfill their roles as God has ordained it from the beginning, and when the woman takes up that void, they cry foul! I seen this movie my whole life, even had a role in it. Jesus came into this world and never once altered or deviated from the order of creation, nether any of the apostles, as a matter of fact they reconfirmed it. So all these man that have been bit by the “equality bug”, are just plain cowards that had abandoned their posts, and put on a skirt, for the sake of peace, tranquillity, and financial gain. There are more afeminate man around today than women. Man, who can’t even make a decision if he will have a burger or salad without his wife’s permission, disgusting! Pardon my language, but unfortunately there are no other words to describe it. All these movements such as Feminists, LGBTQ, and modern day “sexual orientation movements” promoted by Albert Mohler, Sam Allberry, Sam Burns and a host of others so called spiritual leaders, are just the consequences and the fruits of failure of man. No victims here, women are just as much failed in the role they were given, and by going and doing things that don’t belong to them or not their responsibility from the get go, just confirms the fact that “all have sinned”, and it’s only through the Second Adam, who failed not, we have been made a new creation.

Trapped · 03-25-2022, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

I think that it’s very simple to read that and say, “he was there”. Plain and simple! Black on white, right? Well, I don’t see it that way, and not because I can’t read plain text, it’s because you have to start reading in Gen 3:1. You have to read the whole story, the whole account of what happened from the beginning to the end, and not just rip out the 3 words out of the whole chapter to make a decision.
“Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?”
1. The account here starts by stating “subtil” and “said unto a woman”. If as you say that they were together at this point, would this be stated as such? Why would it not say that he “said unto them”? Why did he had to be subtil? And why did he not go for Adam, if he was there? And if as Paul says Adam wasn’t deceived, how come Adam didn’t say anything because he had clear mind and knew exactly the words that God said???

It seems like you are linking "subtle" with "said unto a woman", but I see no such link in the verses. If you read the exchange, the subtlety on the serpent's part was that he sneaked a lie ("you will not certainly die") into the rest of what he said. The rest of what he said ("God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.") was actually true. He did what we all know the ministry in the local church does, and leavened the truth with some lies.

Adam, ostensibly, was there. You can be with someone and yet experience a third party coming up who only addresses one of the two people.

Adam knew exactly the words God said, but it is obvious that Eve also knew. We don't know where Eve's additional phrase of "you must not touch it" came from, but that was a stricter prohibition than God had even given.

How come Adam didn't say anything? Because he failed. And he failed again later too when instead of taking responsibility for his transgression he tried to blame Eve first. Adam was not deceived by Eve; I think we all agree his action was willful. And yet even though he knew he was guilty, he still tried to pin the blame on Eve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

2. The second issue is that the case can be made that Adam was not even aware of the conversation between the serpent and Eve! Because based on the responses he gave to Lord God, in subsequent verses, show no indication that he was. The answers that he gave, were to blame God for the woman, and blame woman for giving him the fruit. No mention of serpent whatsoever! He could have and would have done exactly the same as Eve did by blaming the serpent if he was present at the time of the event in Gen 3:1. The idea that he was under some kind of delusion of sorts and stood there like a frozen statue, is just ridiculous! And also as Paul said, Adam was not deceived, indicating that if they both were there at the time, he would not be able to state so.'

Adam not being deceived just means he wasn't deceived. He could have sinned willfully being there at the same time, or not being there at the same time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

3. Was he there with her when they took of the tree and ate it? Yes 100%. He was standing next to her, while she took the lead and gave it to him.

You comment that Eve "took the lead" is adding to the text. When God says "...because you listened to the voice of your wife".....this doesn't mean that husbands should not listen to their wives. It means Adam listened to Eve when he knew that it contradicted what God had said. The lesson is not "don't listen to your wife" or "wives lead you into deception" or any such inane thing. It's heed what God says over what anyone else says.

Much of what you are saying involves making the same kind of assumptions as the other viewpoint previously discussed here does. I'm not sure either viewpoint can claim absolute certainty that theirs is correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

4. Why I believe Adam is accountable for the fall is very simple:
A. The commandment was given to a man, Adam in Genesis 2, ALONE, and not to the woman.

B. It was Adam that was to be a lead of this union and not Eve, and give instructions to her about it.
God didn’t come back and reiterated it to the woman, after He created her at the end of Gen 2.

C. Romans 5, states that sin entered the world through Adam, or man. Adam failed on two fronts:
1). As I mentioned above, when God put him in the garden, he gave him instructions and commandments in Gen 2. It was totally up to Adam to take care and inform his wife about what God said. He failed with his responsibility first to his wife.
2). Once he failed that, which by the way can be determined by the way the woman answered the question of the serpent, he was no longer the one giving instructions in Gen 3:6, which led to an even bigger sin to disobey God. His answer to God, by blaming God and the woman, tells you all you need to know, about who was in charge at that time.
Serpent went to Eve, and did exactly the same as what he already have done in the past, by wanting to be “equal”. Adam, failed to be the man, not only to God, but also to his wife, so serpent used the occasion and told the woman basically, to step out and make a decision on her own, and the offer of “you will be like god”, sealed that deal. She had a role and that role was to be a helper, but as soon as Adam failed and left a void, by abandoning his responsibility to his wife, it was quickly filled by her, with the help of the serpent.

Eve's answer to the serpent was not problematic as far as I can tell. It represented accurately what God had said, and then added even more on top of that. Adam could have said something like, "you know what honey, let's not even touch the tree, just to be safe". Or maybe Adam himself added something to it as if God had said it. Or maybe Eve herself added that tidbit. Either way, the way she responded was in line with how they were supposed to behave related to the tree.

"You will be like God" is the truth. It is actually what happened....God Himself says so - "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil...." It was the serpent's lie that they would not die (i.e. no consequences for disobeying) that was the enticing part.

The impression I get is that many Christian brothers think that women were created as kind of stupid, kind of dumb, kind of susceptible to deception, etc. I just do not see that represented in Scripture. If God gives someone a helper, it would be a lame move on God's part to give THAT kind of helper to him. What God created with man and woman was good; He didn't create some half-wit woman to drag Adam down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Lastly,
I believe that the New Testament explains the Old Testament, therefore when Paul says in 1 Tim 2, “13*For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14*And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”, he confirms what has been in place, or the order since the creation began in Gen 2.
Unfortunately, what’s going on in our egalitarian society has bled into the churches at such rapid pace, especially in the western world, that even bringing up this subject is considered a taboo of sorts. All these man, that at one time held to certain Biblical principles, have become infatuated with social aspects of progress, that Bible needs to fit the current times, rather than in reverse. I’d be willing to put my house down, that if Paul spoke today, his comments would be much more offensive than it was then,(especially to man), based on the current condition of the church.

Are you of the viewpoint that women are more easily deceived? I'd rather wait for your response to that question before I write more on that topic.

Trapped

Paul Vusik · 03-25-2022, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

It seems like you are linking "subtle" with "said unto a woman", but I see no such link in the verses. If you read the exchange, the subtlety on the serpent's part was that he sneaked a lie ("you will not certainly die") into the rest of what he said. The rest of what he said ("God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.") was actually true. He did what we all know the ministry in the local church does, and leavened the truth with some lies.

Adam, ostensibly, was there. You can be with someone and yet experience a third party coming up who only addresses one of the two people.

Adam knew exactly the words God said, but it is obvious that Eve also knew. We don't know where Eve's additional phrase of "you must not touch it" came from, but that was a stricter prohibition than God had even given.

How come Adam didn't say anything? Because he failed. And he failed again later too when instead of taking responsibility for his transgression he tried to blame Eve first. Adam was not deceived by Eve; I think we all agree his action was willful. And yet even though he knew he was guilty, he still tried to pin the blame on Eve.

Adam not being deceived just means he wasn't deceived. He could have sinned willfully being there at the same time, or not being there at the same time.

You comment that Eve "took the lead" is adding to the text. When God says "...because you listened to the voice of your wife".....this doesn't mean that husbands should not listen to their wives. It means Adam listened to Eve when he knew that it contradicted what God had said. The lesson is not "don't listen to your wife" or "wives lead you into deception" or any such inane thing. It's heed what God says over what anyone else says.

Much of what you are saying involves making the same kind of assumptions as the other viewpoint previously discussed here does. I'm not sure either viewpoint can claim absolute certainty that theirs is correct.

Eve's answer to the serpent was not problematic as far as I can tell. It represented accurately what God had said, and then added even more on top of that. Adam could have said something like, "you know what honey, let's not even touch the tree, just to be safe". Or maybe Adam himself added something to it as if God had said it. Or maybe Eve herself added that tidbit. Either way, the way she responded was in line with how they were supposed to behave related to the tree.

"You will be like God" is the truth. It is actually what happened....God Himself says so - "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil...." It was the serpent's lie that they would not die (i.e. no consequences for disobeying) that was the enticing part.

The impression I get is that many Christian brothers think that women were created as kind of stupid, kind of dumb, kind of susceptible to deception, etc. I just do not see that represented in Scripture. If God gives someone a helper, it would be a lame move on God's part to give THAT kind of helper to him. What God created with man and woman was good; He didn't create some half-wit woman to drag Adam down.

Are you of the viewpoint that women are more easily deceived? I'd rather wait for your response to that question before I write more on that topic.

Trapped

Trapped,

I don’t necessarily have to or need to argue on the point about if he was there or not, since it’s clearly not stated at the beginning of the account. Your assumption that he was, and my assumption that he wasn’t based on how I see it the context and his responses, we can differ, its fine. Like I said, I have never heard that described that way before, thus was the point of inquiry.

As far as you question goes:
I stand firmly on the position that there is God ordained way, like I said from the beginning. When Paul mentions in multiple letters, regarding male and female roles, starting in the family, and ending in the church, I believe that there is a reasons why it is such. I for one, don’t believe that women are dumb, or stupid as I have heard and believe some people think so. I think that if you read proverbs 31 women description, that doesn’t at all sound like some half-wit as you stated. But where I draw the line, it’s not about abilities or capabilities, it’s about assigned roles, and being ok with it as God made it. So when these roles are upside down, then there is more chances for deception. I will ask you this, if it wasn’t so, why Jesus who was God, didn’t choose any women to be His disciples? He is the greatest person that ever walk this planet, and He had every opportunity to set things straight if they were out of order, why He didn’t? Maybe He knows something you and I don’t and won’t? That’s why I stand firm on this issue.

On your point about listening to your wife: There is a clear difference between listening, and following. I have no issues listening to what my wife has to say regarding a specific issue or beliefs, however I’ll make a decision on what I believe the Word of God says about a matter, if different. In my personal life, I believe today, that the only reason that my family is in this scam, it’s because I failed, just like Adam did. I wasn’t there to help, guide, care, love, and be the spiritual leader of my family. I didn’t care much about it when I was young. I was so over the religion, and dead ritualistic parades every meeting and Sunday, I gave up on it. But instead of seeing through the man’s made facades, I blamed God for these failures. Talk about nothing changed in 6000 years! Now, although I understand what happened, the seeds that were planted then, I now reap. God forgives, and forgets, but the circumstances that I created don’t always get corrected immediately or sometimes ever. I pray for grace, because if not for it, we are all just spinning our wheels!

UntoHim · 03-26-2022, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

I will ask you this, if it wasn’t so, why Jesus who was God, didn’t choose any women to be His disciples? He is the greatest person that ever walk this planet, and He had every opportunity to set things straight if they were out of order, why He didn’t? Maybe He knows something you and I don’t and won’t? That’s why I stand firm on this issue.

My brother Paul, you may want to be careful about just where you are standing firm. The Lord Jesus did not come "set things straight" as far are the social/economical/political atmosphere and norms of his day. I will ask you this: why did Jesus heal the centurion's slave without demanding that he set the slave free? Why did the apostle Paul send Onesimus back to Philemon without demanding that he release him from being his indentured slave (bondservant)?

My brother I'm afraid that the "order" you speak of is not a "God ordained order", but rather an order that has been established and maintained by man. The Lord Jesus did not seem interested in overturning the culture, customs and norms of his day as much as turning over the tables, man-made ordinances and sensibilities of the religious leaders of the day.

As to your rhetorical question: "Why Jesus who was God, didn’t choose any women to be His disciples" I think my explanation above covers that. Another question for you (albeit rhetorical as well): Why did Jesus chose women to be the first witnesses of the empty tomb? The "order of the day" in 1st Century Israel was that women were not qualified to be witnesses. They were deemed not as trustworthy as men. So what gives? Why didn't God just stick with "the ordained order" and have men to be the first witnesses to the empty tomb?
Just sayin...
-

Ohio · 03-26-2022, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My brother Paul, you may want to be careful about just where you are standing firm. The Lord Jesus did not come "set things straight" as far are the social/economical/political atmosphere and norms of his day. I will ask you this: why did Jesus heal the centurion's slave without demanding that he set the slave free? Why did the apostle Paul send Onesimus back to Philemon without demanding that he release him from being his indentured slave.
-

Great points!

Jesus will set everything straight when He comes again.

Paul Vusik · 03-27-2022, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My brother Paul, you may want to be careful about just where you are standing firm. The Lord Jesus did not come "set things straight" as far are the social/economical/political atmosphere and norms of his day.

Untohim,

I’m not sure where in my post you find that statement, or even mention of such a thing, I really doubt you read the whole thing, if you came up with those kind of conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I will ask you this: why did Jesus heal the centurion's slave without demanding that he set the slave free? Why did the apostle Paul send Onesimus back to Philemon without demanding that he release him from being his indentured slave (bondservant)?

The answer to your questions is a simple one, neither Jesus or Paul were in business to effect change in social ranks of society. Also, these questions have zero to do, with how God put the order and roles in the family and church, when it comes to man and women. These are established by God Himself, and no man of any social/political/economical power or structure has any jurisdiction over these two aspects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My brother I'm afraid that the "order" you speak of is not a "God ordained order", but rather an order that has been established and maintained by man. The Lord Jesus did not seem interested in overturning the culture, customs and norms of his day as much as turning over the tables, man-made ordinances and sensibilities of the religious leaders of the day.

Again, when you make a statement like this, or hold to this kind of ideas, you imply that God came into this world, and followed orders and establishments of man? Really? That’s very naive. He came to fulfill all the God given laws, and requirements, that neither any single man, nor a nation of Israel was able to do. He accomplished and abolished all of it, therefore He said, “it is finished”.

Gen 2, and 3, states very precisely on what the family order was from the get go. Old Testament laws were given by God, clearly state what the order was in the Old Testament times, when it comes to service as priests. New Testament on multiple occasions confirms those aspects, thus the “uncomfortable verses that exist today”. So as far as I’m concerned, I haven’t seen any proof or even few verses that state otherwise. So until I do, I will stand firm on what’s there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As to your rhetorical question: "Why Jesus who was God, didn’t choose any women to be His disciples" I think my explanation above covers that. Another question for you (albeit rhetorical as well): Why did Jesus chose women to be the first witnesses of the empty tomb? The "order of the day" in 1st Century Israel was that women were not qualified to be witnesses. They were deemed not as trustworthy as men. So what gives? Why didn't God just stick with "the ordained order" and have men to be the first witnesses to the empty tomb?
Just sayin...
-

1. Before Jesus came into this world, there have been 4000 or so yrs of civilization. Since the creation the world operated under the same principles, and they were not some kind of invention of man, please give credit where credit is due. Reading Old Testament makes that very clear.

2. If having women being first witness of the empty tomb, as you say is some kind of “special sign”, you grasping at straws. All that it says and shows, how much more difficult it was for women that followed Christ at that time, and to whom He forgave and totally transformed their life’s to deal with what they thought was the end of the story, and unlike some of His disciples didn’t go fishing, but were going through a normal grieving process. If you want to dive even deeper here, as was the custom of that time, the final burial procedures when it comes to anointing the body with spices, was done mostly by women in those days. So because Jesus died during the Passover Feast, and the next day was Sabbath, in which no one can do any final burial procedures required in those days, it was the first day of the week that these women had to go and complete all the proper procedures.

UntoHim · 03-29-2022, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

In my personal life, I believe today, that the only reason that my family is in this scam, it’s because I failed, just like Adam did. I wasn’t there to help, guide, care, love, and be the spiritual leader of my family. I didn’t care much about it when I was young. I was so over the religion, and dead ritualistic parades every meeting and Sunday, I gave up on it. But instead of seeing through the man’s made facades, I blamed God for these failures. Talk about nothing changed in 6000 years! Now, although I understand what happened, the seeds that were planted then, I now reap. God forgives, and forgets, but the circumstances that I created don’t always get corrected immediately or sometimes ever. I pray for grace, because if not for it, we are all just spinning our wheels!

Paul, before I went any further on my points and counterpoints, I just wanted to acknowledge this heartfelt post. As a fellow failure, I just wanted to give a big Amen to what you wrote here. We can banter back in forth about our interpretations and understandings, but the most important thing is what have we done with the gifts and responsibilities that the Lord has given us. This is especially true for Christian men who have wives and families.
-

Paul Vusik · 03-30-2022, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Paul, before I went any further on my points and counterpoints, I just wanted to acknowledge this heartfelt post. As a fellow failure, I just wanted to give a big Amen to what you wrote here. We can banter back in forth about our interpretations and understandings, but the most important thing is what have we done with the gifts and responsibilities that the Lord has given us. This is especially true for Christian men who have wives and families.
-

Untohim,

I’ll say Amen also, to you and anyone that has the guts to admit mistakes and face questions and circumstances head on, rather than saying “we all made mistakes, and not perfect”, and just bury them under the proverbial rug. I find it puzzling that in a lot of so called Christian community now days, saying “I’m sorry” or taking responsibility, talking about reality of life and things you face every day, is considered to make you less of a man. The societal interference on our image and standing, as a some kind of measurement of success and substance, is destroying the living fabric and true nature of what it means to be a Christian.

I know that this is off topic here, forgive me, but I would just say that the simplest concept that the Lord show me this, is in the way that I do regular maintenance on my car. When I purchased it, it was new, was just made. However after driving it for a bit, even the brand new car will have a light come on that says “Maintenance Required”. I have two choices, act on it, or ignore it! Will my car still drive for a while if I do nothing? Yep. Will it still look good on the outside and even smell new on the inside? Yep. However, if I just ignore it, and as one gal once asked me, “can I have some electrical tape so that I can put over the light so it doesn’t bother me”, and go on, there is another one that comes on. It’s a bit more serious, it’s the “Check Engine” light. I can still drive, although might not be at it’s full power and full force, but hey, doesn’t it still look great? Smell great? I can have it so detailed on the outside, it would look immaculate! No one can see my electrical tape anyway covering up those bright shining lights!
It’s only when one day on the way to work, my car that looks great, abruptly gives up driving, your whole dashboard is lid up, and you find yourself stranded on the busy intersection with emergency lights flashing. All the onlookers are just amazed and dumbfounded, how can such a brand new car, that looks so immaculate, have smoke coming out from under the hood and is totally disabled? But it’s only you that knows why! There isn’t enough tape to cover it up anymore, and it’s kind of late anyway, the tow truck is there and everyone seen what happened.
So is our live. How many times instead of doing what I should have done, I listen to someone who said, “it’s not that important”, or instead of going to the Mechanik, I went to contractor and asked for some tape? No big deal I thought. How many times when God was trying to put a road block and make me stop, I just detoured around it, by saying it’s just isn’t that important. It’s only when you get a bill, for the repairs that you neglected, that $100 oil change and maintenance, looks like a 50 cent bubble gum in comparison. We all been there to some extent or another, but what’s very unfortunate is that not everyone is willing to expose the truth of what’s matters in life, rather just keeps polishing that exterior, since you know that according to our society, IMAGINE that’s all that matters!

03-21-2021, 08:48 AM	#2
countmeworthy Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: in Spirit & in Truth Posts: 1,376	Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Great stuff Trapped. Much appreciate you sharing this video with us. Sure cleared questions I had. Still not clear on the matter of “supernatural” tongues. Is it man made or not? Another matter I struggle understanding is the “5 fold ministry” mentioned in Ephesians.. the one that names some apostles, some prophets, pastors, teachers etc.... It seems to me the clergy-laity system which God clearly hates was birthed from these scriptures. Would like thoughts on those passages too. Thanks __________________ Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be *accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass,* and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36)

03-21-2021, 10:18 AM	#3
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,100	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Yes! Good stuff, Trapped Nell

03-22-2021, 11:48 AM	#4
Awoken Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 86	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women I did listen. I was kind of on board for the first section but definitely not when she got to 1 Timothy 2. My feeling is that she is REALLY stretching to make this interpretation about "the" woman and this supposed individual's erroneous commandments, which leads me to believe I should also be leery about her interpretation in the first part of the video. I am actually really suspicious about inserting grammatical redefinitions of the meaning of the written word in this way. Just recently I visited (in person) with a pastor and his wife and we had a long chat about doctrinal heresy and false teachings, largely because I was relating to him my experience in the local churches. One of the things he pointed out to me by way of anecdote was that there was a false teacher he'd heard who twisted Scripture specifically by saying "if you just insert a comma here, it totally changes the meaning of the verse!". Keep in mind this conversation had absolutely no relation to this present forum post at all as this hadn't even been posted yet. Another thing; Eve, who was deceived (not Adam), changed Scripture when the serpent tempted her: "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" That's not what God said - the additional material was inserted by Eve.

03-22-2021, 11:48 AM	#5
Sons to Glory! Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 2,617	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Thanks much for sharing that, Trapped! Those verses were in my "set-aside" file . . . that is scripture I read that don't make good sense to me and I just set aside my understanding until the Lord chooses to give me light. But this seems to make pretty good sense, considering the full context of those passages! We've been going through Colossians in my fellowship and have been looking more at what the Gnostic teachings were, so the last part did actually make better sense to me regarding those heretical teachings and how Paul was addressing them. __________________ LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! Last edited by Sons to Glory!; 03-22-2021 at 01:21 PM.

03-22-2021, 06:13 PM	#7
Awoken Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 86	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Adam's willful disobedience was definitely worse. Nevertheless we also need to be careful not to be deceived.

03-20-2021, 11:37 PM	#1
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women A while back I had to dig into some of the known cringey verses about women in the church....you know the "be silent, it's shameful for you to speak" ones. I know there are many people who have tripped over these verses, and in some cases they have been partly responsible for their leaving the faith. I came across this simple, unassuming video on YouTube, and frankly......I've found it to be the absolute best explanation so far that 1) makes sense, 2) jives with other parts of scripture, 3) doesn't crush women, and 4) doesn't make me shut up my conscience to consider it as a real possibility. What is additionally cool for me about this interpretation is that it also makes sense of a few verses that used to drive me up the wall......the ones where Paul says tongues are a sign for unbelievers, and then turns around and says that if unbelievers walked in to 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. The video is about 20 minutes long, but I frankly think it's worth the time. She speaks slowly enough that you could probably play it on slightly faster speed and listen to it quicker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRZQcuq70E Curious about people's thoughts. Trapped

03-22-2021, 07:54 PM	#9
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Hang on to yur hats saints....it looks like Paul's uncomfortable verses are even more uncomfortable 2,000 years later! I wonder who was more uncomfortable reading Paul's first letter to the Corinthians (chapter 7)....the masters or the slaves? Think about it. It's 2021 brothers and sisters...not 0021. God expects us...no...he demands that we interpret his Word within the scope and parameters of the time and culture that we find ourselves in. You know who really needs to "keep silent"? Those of us who are decidedly ignorant of the historical/biblical connotations and implications of what the apostle Paul was writing down on those papyrus and parchment scrolls all those 20 centuries ago. Think about it. Study. Pray. Consider. Think some more. Study some more. Consider some more. - __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

03-22-2021, 08:25 PM	#10
Awoken Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 86	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Whose failure was I pointing at? The lady who is adding extra grammar to the Bible, or Eve's? And in which case would I be wrong? To at least call the action of the person drastically changing the meaning of Bible verses into question, or mentioning that there is a direct parallel to the failure of a certain Biblical character, which we do all the time for men? Hm.. can you think of some other threads where I have recently called male teachers into question? Witness Lee? Ravi Zacharias? Plenty of others. I find your accusations rude and ungrounded and frankly I'm kind of hurt by the hypocrisy, and UntoHim's hurtful "next", I'm just garbage I guess, or fodder. I'm out of here for a while. Awoken.

03-23-2021, 08:59 PM	#15
HERn Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 968	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women To me the fiasco of Adam failing Eve in her hour of need with the tree and the serpent shows that wives should ultimately look to and trust in their God rather than their husbands. Wives may be to their husbands as Christ is to His Father, but the Father never demanded anything from the Son, the Son freely submitted to His Father. Husbands can demand nothing from their wives. But where the wife freely offers her love and respect to her husband (who does not deserve it) there you will find a little bit of heaven on earth. __________________ Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." (KJV Version) Look to Jesus not The Ministry.

03-24-2021, 10:21 AM	#18
Nell Admin/Moderator Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 2,100	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Aron, my post #14 offers another perspective, quoting K. Bushnell. Can you please take a look? Thanks- Nell

03-24-2021, 08:57 PM	#19
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Awoken, Donnnnnnnnnnn't leeeeeeeeave. Please. As Nell said, your contributions are valuable. Your voice is needed. I actually mostly agree with your hesitation about the latter part of that video....the 1 Timothy 2 part. It is true that the greek doesn't say "the woman" versus "a woman".....it's just "woman". But I see her interpretation about that particular set of verses as "huh....that could be" or "never thought about that possibility before" or "interesting interpretation". I'm not so convinced that I would say "that is now how I view those verses!" But I think I would separate my conclusions about the latter part from the first part about Corinthians. Listening to the first part, I DO see plenty of grounds for what the video says to be possible. For example: -it makes no sense for Paul to say women should be silent, but also make positive reference to the "whole church" coming together and prophesying or speaking in tongues. That's not silent. -it makes no sense for Mary and the other women at the tomb to go out and tell of Jesus's resurrection, for the other accounts of female co-workers, of important females in the church to be shown as having impact to grow the church.....and yet they've got to shut up when they return to gather with the church? Chloe had the church in her home but had to zip her lips? -as the person in the video mentioned, in 7:1, Paul does say "now to the matters you wrote about" and there are indeed Bible commentaries that acknowledge that the next part ("it is good for a man not to touch a woman") could reasonably be a quote from the letters Paul received that he was quoting in response. I don't see it a stretch at all for there to be continued quotes afterward too. -honestly it is strange that the Bible speaks of all kinds of positions and functions and gifts and roles and the equality of all the members, each having a connection to the Head, each being the many brothers of Jesus, each being in the priesthood.....and then Paul smacks half of them across the face and tells them to can it because they are female? It just doesn't jive. -as I said in my OP, the portion related to tongues and unbelievers was also similarly strange. Didn't fit together. When you realize one was the false teaching, and one was Paul's correction of it - what was formerly nonsensically irreconcilable by basic logic all of a sudden fits perfectly. And that part has nothing to do with women. I have differing thoughts about the 1 Timothy part that I think are reasonable but are not mentioned in the video at all. Paul is showing pretty clearly that the women are learning....and if someone is learning, it's very normal that you wouldn't want them teaching yet. He doesn't say "Let the women worship in silence" or "sit in silence" or "meet in silence" but LEARN in silence. There's more I could say but am short on time. Anyway, just my thoughts. I reiterate - please stick around. Trapped

03-25-2021, 03:43 PM	#23
Awoken Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 86	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women I just needed some time to deal with being offended. Sometimes I can be a bit thin-skinned, all is forgiven, and thanks UH and Nell for the kind words. I might pipe back in on this one later after I've had some time to mull it over - grace, Awoken

03-25-2021, 09:39 PM	#24
Curious Member Join Date: Jan 2019 Posts: 186	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Interesting conversation on tricky issues. I have loved to learn this perspective that is put forward on this thread. I too struggle with all the verses above, and getting a grasp on God's true intention for the relationship between man and woman. I can't see how the quality of a person's contribution should be less important than their gender, for example, Corrie Ten Boon's famous exchange with the ex-Nazi officer as she gave him communion. This testimony has become famous, and has been powerfully effective to many people, for many years. It was her struggle as a human being in ways that relate to us all, male, female and anything in between. It just feels 'religious' to reject a powerful testimony based on a person's gender. But then what to do with Paul's instructions? So, I for one am very intrigued with this new perspective, and I do think the grammar creates sense from otherwise confusing and self- contradictory passages. It's something to pray about and wrestle with, as Untohim has advised. No-one is forcing anyone to make a snap judgement on it. Thanks Trapped, for sharing it. I have already passed it on to my own friends. A very interesting offering. .... In my own recent thoughts on this matter generally, I have been wondering, if what God said to Eve, 'your husband will rule over you' could be extended to mean: the more powerful will rule over the weaker, power will dominate and exploit vulnerability in others, were opportune. The overall dynamic will be changed from strength nurturing the smaller, physically inferior party, to, strength will now take advantage, and prey on for its own benefit, at the cost of the weaker, subjected one or subjected group. 2 reasons I wonder about this: 1. There were only 2 humans at the time this change happened. At the time of 'the fall' where God's image became marred in his beings, and something of the nature of His opposite manifested, there were only two human beings. The expression of this dynamic could only at that time that it entered, relate to those two as there were no groups of people existing yet. 2. The propensity holds true that it is not just man that exploits woman, but it explains slavery, class systems, child abuse, and every exploitation of the poor or vulnerable or disadvantaged that has plagued our world ever since. And all such exploitation and abuse stands aside from every action, demonstration and teaching of Jesus. So those are my ideas, to further confuse the whole discussion! I'm interested in the input of others. Feel free to comment!!

03-25-2021, 10:30 PM	#25
HERn Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 968	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Adam could have chosen to intercede for his God-given partner, instead he chose death. https://www.deidrehavrelock.com/eve/2typesofsin/ __________________ Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith." (KJV Version) Look to Jesus not The Ministry.

03-28-2021, 09:29 PM	#32
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women Not sure how well I can explain this, but in re-reading 1 Corinthians, I noticed just how much Paul uses the "mocking rhetorical question" device. He often uses it right after something mock-worthy. For example: -beginning of chapter 3 when he challenges them as "are you not mere human beings?" for their contention about Paul vs Apollos. -beginning of chapter 4 when he challenges them about being puffed up or boasting. -beginning of chapter 5 when he gets on their case for being proud about the sexual immorality among them, rather than driving the guy out of the church. -and numerous other places too. Including at the end of chapter 14 right after the "women be silent" portion where he then challenges them "did the word of God originate with you? or are you the only people it has reached?" This might lend a little support to the thought that the "women must be silent, it is disgraceful for them to speak, etc" concept is mock-worthy. Just thinking out loud.

03-29-2021, 03:07 PM	#35
Awoken Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Posts: 86	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women I feel both of the above are healthy teaching (although the first might be a little easier on the ears than the second). Jesus said “many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first”. It might be of some encouragement to consider that whatever we are in this temporary life, if we believe God's word and act accordingly, He will reward us accordingly - and those who are in lesser positions now and who are obedient will, perhaps very likely, be greater in the things that come after. Last edited by Awoken; 03-29-2021 at 06:34 PM.

03-25-2022, 04:52 PM	#46
Paul Vusik Member Join Date: Oct 2021 Posts: 196	Re: Paul's Uncomfortable Verses About Women I think that it’s very simple to read that and say, “he was there”. Plain and simple! Black on white, right? Well, I don’t see it that way, and not because I can’t read plain text, it’s because you have to start reading in Gen 3:1. You have to read the whole story, the whole account of what happened from the beginning to the end, and not just rip out the 3 words out of the whole chapter to make a decision. “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” 1. The account here starts by stating “subtil” and “said unto a woman”. If as you say that they were together at this point, would this be stated as such? Why would it not say that he “said unto them”? Why did he had to be subtil? And why did he not go for Adam, if he was there? And if as Paul says Adam wasn’t deceived, how come Adam didn’t say anything because he had clear mind and knew exactly the words that God said??? 2. The second issue is that the case can be made that Adam was not even aware of the conversation between the serpent and Eve! Because based on the responses he gave to Lord God, in subsequent verses, show no indication that he was. The answers that he gave, were to blame God for the woman, and blame woman for giving him the fruit. No mention of serpent whatsoever! He could have and would have done exactly the same as Eve did by blaming the serpent if he was present at the time of the event in Gen 3:1. The idea that he was under some kind of delusion of sorts and stood there like a frozen statue, is just ridiculous! And also as Paul said, Adam was not deceived, indicating that if they both were there at the time, he would not be able to state so. 3. Was he there with her when they took of the tree and ate it? Yes 100%. He was standing next to her, while she took the lead and gave it to him. 4. Why I believe Adam is accountable for the fall is very simple: A. The commandment was given to a man, Adam in Genesis 2, ALONE, and not to the woman. B. It was Adam that was to be a lead of this union and not Eve, and give instructions to her about it. God didn’t come back and reiterated it to the woman, after He created her at the end of Gen 2. C. Romans 5, states that sin entered the world through Adam, or man. Adam failed on two fronts: 1). As I mentioned above, when God put him in the garden, he gave him instructions and commandments in Gen 2. It was totally up to Adam to take care and inform his wife about what God said. He failed with his responsibility first to his wife. 2). Once he failed that, which by the way can be determined by the way the woman answered the question of the serpent, he was no longer the one giving instructions in Gen 3:6, which led to an even bigger sin to disobey God. His answer to God, by blaming God and the woman, tells you all you need to know, about who was in charge at that time. Serpent went to Eve, and did exactly the same as what he already have done in the past, by wanting to be “equal”. Adam, failed to be the man, not only to God, but also to his wife, so serpent used the occasion and told the woman basically, to step out and make a decision on her own, and the offer of “you will be like god”, sealed that deal. She had a role and that role was to be a helper, but as soon as Adam failed and left a void, by abandoning his responsibility to his wife, it was quickly filled by her, with the help of the serpent. Lastly, I believe that the New Testament explains the Old Testament, therefore when Paul says in 1 Tim 2, “13For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”, he confirms what has been in place, or the order since the creation began in Gen 2. Unfortunately, what’s going on in our egalitarian society has bled into the churches at such rapid pace, especially in the western world, that even bringing up this subject is considered a taboo of sorts. All these man, that at one time held to certain Biblical principles, have become infatuated with social aspects of progress, that Bible needs to fit the current times, rather than in reverse. I’d be willing to put my house down, that if Paul spoke today, his comments would be much more offensive than it was then,(especially to man), based on the current condition of the church. The problem today is with man more than with woman, just as it was then. The man fail to fulfill their roles as God has ordained it from the beginning, and when the woman takes up that void, they cry foul! I seen this movie my whole life, even had a role in it. Jesus came into this world and never once altered or deviated from the order of creation, nether any of the apostles, as a matter of fact they reconfirmed it. So all these man that have been bit by the “equality bug”, are just plain cowards that had abandoned their posts, and put on a skirt, for the sake of peace, tranquillity, and financial gain. There are more afeminate man around today than women. Man, who can’t even make a decision if he will have a burger or salad without his wife’s permission, disgusting! Pardon my language, but unfortunately there are no other words to describe it. All these movements such as Feminists, LGBTQ, and modern day “sexual orientation movements” promoted by Albert Mohler, Sam Allberry, Sam Burns and a host of others so called spiritual leaders, are just the consequences and the fruits of failure of man. No victims here, women are just as much failed in the role they were given, and by going and doing things that don’t belong to them or not their responsibility from the get go, just confirms the fact that “all have sinned”, and it’s only through the Second Adam, who failed not, we have been made a new creation. __________________ “You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you.” ― C.S. Lewis

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode