CLC

Nice blog, and great article.

I had never thought of it like that…. I had thought of the “nagging wife” thing back when I saw the various meanings for the Greek. But this is something to muse over.

Thing is… The switch from women in general to speaking of one woman and her husband is kind of strange… If it followed at the end of chapter 1, it might make more clear sense as you translate it. But it follows Paul asking women to dress modestly and with propriety. However, the patriarchal method is confusing lunacy.

1. What does other women teaching and having authority over men have to do with the fact that the first man wasn’t deceived, while the first woman was? That’s like saying just because some of my female friends or, even better, my mother isn’t as knowledgeable about the Bible, that means that I must, therefore, not know much about the Bible. That’s stupid and proves nothing. What about when God came and told Rebekah that the babies in her womb were two nations and that the older would serve the younger? Jacob still insisted on trying to bless Esau in rebellion of God’s wishes.
   What about Esther knowing more than her husband?
   What about Deborah being ruler over her husband and other men?
   What about the Shunamite woman taking charge of her son’s death and other property matters?
   What about Pontius Pilate’s wife asking him to not do this to Jesus?
   There are lots of places where the wife got Godly council over their husbands; and they presented this council to their husbands. That line of thinking is just stupid.

2. Second, my NIV translation makes it seem like only women fell into sin: “14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.” We all know that Adam also became a sinner. Paul himself has said so many times. It makes me question my Bible’s translation.

3. If Adam wasn’t deceived, yet he still at the fruit, what does that say about him? He knowingly walked into this. So, if women are always going to have to go to their men for correct instruction because we are always going to be deceived, I guess that means that men are always going to know what the Scriptures say but will still knowingly commit sin and not bother to give correct instruction, anyway.
   Adam is kind of like a false prophet who knows what he is saying is wrong, while Eve is kind of like a false prophet who has been deceived into thinking this is the correct doctrine. Who is the worse one here? I don’t see how that makes him better able to give correct instruction when he is unwilling to do so.

4. What do they mean that women will be saved through childbearing? That makes no sense. We are saved by grace alone, period.

Anyway, I don’t know enough Hebrew to be an authority or anything. I just know that the patriarchal usage of this is contradictory to the rest of Scripture and just plain strange.

My original thought is that it would be basically translated as (Forgive me if I don’t perfectly remember the other translations of the various Greek words….. It’s been a while….) Think of women as having not gotten the Scriptural training men have gotten up to this point since it was not a priority in these cultures for women to learn things other than just obey:

11 A woman should learn with quiet grace and great humbleness. 12 I don’t want a woman to be lecturing men with false authority; she must be humble. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived (i.e. had more knowledge by being born before her); it was the woman who was deceived (did not have knowledge) and became a sinner because of her lack of knowledge. But she will be saved through childbearing (as in reference to “the woman’s seed striking the head of the snake”?) — if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

It’s what I’ve been thinking of…; but yours is interesting…. What do you think? (Sorry if I’m not totally clear…..)