Craig

Hi Everyone,
I have been involved in another blog recently on egal and comp things. The present discussion has just reached 400 comments and there is a computer problem. I wouldn’t mind some help thinking about the problems with what “J” has just said until the discussion can resume.
I have put my last comment and his reply. Thanks.

Craig 19/11/2010 08:24 PM
Hi J,
After a sermon and bible study group on 1 Tim 2 at church earlier this year, I had some questions about its interpretation. It was suggested that I read Moo’s chapter in RBMW ch9. This only created more questions and has led to me being here now.
You said your view of Eve’s deception is basically the same as Moo/ Grudem.
Moo says on p190 that he does NOT believe that Paul is saying that all women are, like Eve, more susceptible to being deceived than are men.
He believes that Eve was deceived by the serpent precisely in taking the initiative over the man.
As I understand him, he seems to be saying that Eve was deceived into a reversal of her God given role.
I know this may seem fairly basic, and there may be a simple answer to it, but at this stage I can’t see it. I couldn’t ask questions of the book, so it has had to wait until now.
I think you would say that Adam and Eve both knew about the authority/ leadership comps believe he was given.
If Eve knew she was not to be in authority, but then led Adam, you are saying she was deceived.
If Adam knew he was in authority, but then followed Eve, then logically he must be deceived as well. Both were deceived about their roles.
But Paul says that only Eve was deceived. Adam was not deceived???? Something doesn’t make sense. Any thoughts?
Also,
If being deceived is believing a lie, who told the lie? Did the serpent say anything about role reversal? Where?
Doesn’t the deception seem all about God’s command to not eat the fruit? This is what the serpent discussed with Eve and what Eve discussed with God.
Thanks.

Craig,

Thanks for the challenging questions, brother.

Yes, I agree the deception was not fundamentally about role-reversal. The
deception was a lie about whether or not they would die when they ate the
fruit (verse 4).

The role reversal happens alongside the eating of the fruit. So, if you
like, 2 sins were committed: the eating of the fruit (primarily), and
Adam’s abandoning of his leadership role (secondarily). Hence God’s
indictment of Adam has 2 parts:

And to Adam he said,

“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife

and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of
it,’…

Was Adam deceived? No, the interaction with the serpent happened entirely
with Eve. Adam was a passive participant — he simply received the fruit
from Eve and ate it. There is no indication that he believed what the
serpent said about the fruit.

Was Eve “deceived” into taking the initiative (lead) over Adam? Perhaps we
could say that this was a secondary aspect of the deception. (The primary
aspect was eating the fruit.) Nevertheless, Adam’s assumption of a
submissive role was, like his taking of the fruit, something that happened
passively. He did not ask Eve to lead him. Eve went ahead and acted all by
herself; all Adam could do was react and follow. So again, Adam was not
deceived.

I’m no Moo, but I hope that helps.

J.