gengwall

Most unbearable is his treatment of Genesis 2 and 3 – it is borderline misogynistic. The following, especially, is not only unsupportable but quite intollerable:

Eve, Paul implies, was not kept safe at the Fall; she was deceived. Why? Because she left her proper domain under her husband’s care. What happened as a result? She became an easy prey for Satan. How can women under Timothy’s charge (and in churches everywhere) avoid repeating the same mistake? By “childbearing,” that is, by adhering to their God-ordained calling, including a focus on marriage, family, and the home. 1 Timothy 2:15 thus turns out to be Paul’s prescription for women as a lesson learned from the scenario of the Fall described in the preceding verse.

This made me have to get up and pace a little to cool down I was so upset at the implications. “A lesson learned from the scenario of the fall”! How outrageous! And where is the lesson for us Adam’s (since we also are certainly represented in Neo’s interpretation)? Is it that if we simply keep our mouth’s shut and let our woman screw up, we get off scot free? That certainly was not God’s view of the whole affair. If Adam was the teacher and Eve was so easily deceived, where is the quality of Adam’s teaching? How does he even qualify to teach if he so woefully blew his first assignment? Oh, that’s right. That naughty little Eve “left her proper domain”. Adam is portrayed as the all wise dispenser of knowledge while Eve is the petulant, obstinate, rebellious 6 year old who would have been just fine if she had stayed in the classroom instead of running off school grounds at recess. How can anyone believe such hogwash!?! It is as if Neo has never read Genesis 3 or Romans 5. But certainly he has, which only makes his prideful power play more pernicious. Ugghh! I need a Dew before I blow.