gengwall

Craig – “I’m still struggling though with understanding Paul’s reasoning if Eve is not in v14b. It sounds like Paul is saying that there is something about Adam being formed first that meant he was not deceived. But this Ephesian woman is not like Adam because she is deceived.
Paul’s emphasis seems to be in contrasting the Ephesian woman with Adam, rather than comparing her to Eve as we have usually understood it.”

I think you are correct, and Cheryl has mentioned this before, that there is something about the first couple’s created order that made it so Adam was not deceived. I don’t think the “something” is important here. What is important is that Adam was not deceived while Eve was.

But the comparison is still to Eve. It would have helped, I suppose, if Paul had said “but the woman, like Eve….” instead of just “but the woman….”. But it isn’t necessary. The entirety of vss. 13-14 make it read clear enough. Compare the two alternatives below, with extra biblical helping text in the brackets.

For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman [in the same manner as Eve] was deceived and has fallen into transgression.

For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman [who I have been discussing] was deceived and has fallen into transgression.

I see no difference between the two. Both compare the Ephesian woman to Eve. Given the entirety of vss. 11-15, especially the singular “she” of vs. 15, and the fact that Paul was discussing a situation Timothy was already well aware of, can you envision that Timothy would have needed either of the bracketed alternatives in order to understand what Paul was talking about? Do we need either of them? I certainly don’t. The passage is very clear to me with the plain reading:

For Adam was created first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived. But the woman was deceived and has fallen into transgression. Yet she will be saved through The Childbirth if…

YET, even if “the woman” is Eve, it doesn’t change the overall meaning of the passage or its subject – a single Ephesian woman. let’s render the passage as if the Genesis portion was parenthetical (and referenced Eve directly).

A woman should learn peacefully, in complete submission. For I do not permit a woman to teach or domineer the man, but to be at peace. (For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, But Eve, having been deceived, fell into transgression). Still, she will be saved through The Childbirth, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness.

If we remove the parenthetical part, the passage reads smoothly:

A woman should learn peacefully, in complete submission. For I do not permit a woman to teach or domineer the man, but to be at peace. Still, she will be saved through The Childbirth, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness.

But does anything really change? “She” is still not Eve and still not all women, and still connects back to “a woman” from vs. 11. “They” still can’t be all women or all men, so probably are the couple (note that “the man” is the actual rendering in vs. 12, meaning a specific man, most likely her husband). All that a parenthetical rendering does is make the Genesis reference confusing. It leaves us asking “what was the point of that Adam and Eve thing” since there is no way that “the woman” and “she” can be the same person if “the woman” is Eve.

This is the most important reason why we must reject such a rendering, because God is not the author of confusion and an inspired Paul, even in this personal letter, would not author gibberish.