The Church Is Failing Women - Part 4

Let’s look at Genesis: 

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. (Genesis 2:18 - 20, ESV)

Why are the animals not fit helpers? In part, because although created first, they are governmentally inferior to him just as Adam is to God.  

As to the immanent Trinity, the only fit helpers for God are God’s own hypostases.  Strictly speaking, we are not helpers — we are honored participants in the story of eternity, not authors co-equal to God.  God has no co-equals outside Himself.  

Thus, the text implies that the woman — not another male — was chosen to be his governmental equal.  This doesn’t mean men are inferior to one another. It means that women & men are governmental co-equal to/with men. 

21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.  (Genesis 2:18–25, ESV)

Where is there a statement that Adam is the supreme ruler in their marriage?

Nowhere.

As to church order? 

Nowhere.

As to Societal Governance? 

Nowhere.

Yet some read this:  

For Adam was formed first, then Eve; (1 Timothy 2:13, ESV)

…as a statement that the bare fact that Adam was created first is proof of his, & therefore male supremacy in matters of ecclesiastical order. 

Since the Bible teaches the 3 uses of the Law, one wonders what they think about women’s authority in the home, & especially in Government.   Taken to its logical conclusion, local, state, provincial, & national governance is the purview of men, never women. 

Those who read this according to their Liturgical Philosophy are also drawing ethical conclusions based on immanent relations — the state of what Ought To Be from the State of That Which Is &/or Was.   

That’s the Is-Ought Fallacy.  That’s also a Category Error, the confusion of what Is or Was with What Ought To Be as well as the confusion of God’s Decretal Will (which encompasses all things, including the Fall) with God’s Moral Will (which entails moral commands & moral examples of what Ought To Be). 

To the woman he said,

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;

in pain you shall bring forth children.

Your desire shall be for your husband,

and he shall rule over you.”  (Genesis 3:16, ESV)

Where does God use her being deceived as an accusation?  Nowhere.

He sanctions her for her disobedience.  The morals test in the Garden is about either one or both of them eating the fruit —- not interacting with the serpent &  not being deceived. 

Yet they read this: 

and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor (1 Timothy 2:14, ESV)

…as if in Genesis, God is calling attention to Eve’s constitutional susceptibility to Satan’s deception, when God made no such observation nor any such accusation. 

In truth *Adam* is the one who did that, not God.  

God:

9 But the Lord God called to the man and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 And he said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked, and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 

Adam:

12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” 

He blames her for his own actions.  Moreover, according to the text, Eve is the one who interacted with the serpent.  Adam did nothing to stop her & didn’t prevent her from eating the fruit, & said nothing whatsoever as he ate of the fruit himself. 

Adam blames the woman & refuses to take responsibility for his actions.  He doesn’t mention the serpent at all.  

Eve: 

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”  (Genesis 3:9–13, ESV)

Eve tacitly admitted her disobedience, & rather than blame Adam, pointed to the serpent, unlike Adam who said nothing directly about the serpent & chose to focus on his wife instead. 

After cursing the serpent, God prophesies over Eve.

“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;

in pain you shall bring forth children.

Your desire shall be for your husband,

and he shall rule over you.”  (Genesis 3:16, ESV)

This isn’t a statement about the prelapsarian relationship between Adam & Eve, in whom are all men & women.  It’s a statement about the post-lapsarian estate & is a millstone around their necks & our own as a consequence. 

If what the traditionbound view says is true, then Paul is restating the curse — for reasons neither Genesis nor 1 Timothy actually supply in relation to your views concerning the temporal priority of Adam’s & male creation & Eve’s & female susceptibility to Satan’s devices — & essentially teaching that God awarded men with spiritual & temporal authority over women even though Adam is the one who sinned the greater & who behaved mercilessly toward his wife in his accusation of her & avoidance of his own moral failure.  

Isn’t the post-lapsarian millstone of the created order supposed to be ideal & thus morally preferrable?  

For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ou (Romans 8:19–23, ESV)

Why then would Paul legislate a permanent ecclesiastical (familial & societal) order from the the post-lapsarian millstoned estate of man while the entire redemptive historical program woven through the pages of the Bible is about reversing the post-lapsarian moral estate of fallen human beings, removing the millstone, & returning /expanding the created order to an immanent estate greater than that of the pre-lapsarian estate? 

The traditional argument doesn’t add up.   

That’s what happens when you reverse engineer theology, philosophy,  & ethics from the state of the created order instead of God’s invisible attributes & authority.