Posted on 02/14/2017 7:36:56 AM PST by Salvation
In yesterday’s post, we explored the details of original sin and learned that there are subtleties and stages to it that can teach us something. Original sin was more than eating a piece of fruit; there were things that led up to it, both externally and internally.
I also mentioned that it was worth exploring how the sacred text speaks of the “Sin of Adam” and differentiates it to some extent from the sin that Eve commits. Biblically, original sin is properly denoted as the “Sin of Adam.” It is Adam’s sin, not Eve’s that is called “original sin” (cf Rom 5:12 inter al).
It is not that Eve did not sin, or that her actions have no interest for us. Yesterday’s post focused on the stages she went through. Rather, as the head of his household and the human family, Adam had responsibility and thereby incurred the sin we call “original sin,” which comes down to all of us.
As you can see, this post isn’t very politically correct thus far—and it’s only going to get worse from here. In striving to differentiate Eve’s sin from Adam’s I would like to take up a very controversial text from St. Paul. While the specific text comports poorly with modern notions, two cautions are in order for those of us who read the text:
First, this is a sacred text, and even if St. Paul may have drawn some of his reflections from the cultural experiences of the time, he provides theological reasons for what he writes.
Second, remember that one verse from St. Paul is not all of St. Paul and certainly not all of Scripture. What Paul says rather absolutely in the verse that follows, he qualifies to some extent and other places as we shall see.
With this in mind, let’s examine the controversial text and strive to distinguish Adam’s sin from Eve’s. St. Paul writes:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim 2:11b-14).
Many, upon reading a text so astonishingly out of step with modern thinking, are prone simply to dismiss it as a relic of some past, dark age. It is debatable whether the edict that a woman should be silent and have no teaching authority over a man, is merely a disciplinary norm that we are not required to observe today. It is also debatable how absolute Paul’s words were meant to be. Paul wrote elsewhere of women in the early church communities as catechists (e.g., Phoebe in Romans 16:1), spiritual leaders, and benefactors (e.g., Lydia). He also made provisions for the proper attire of a woman who is to speak in the assembly (she is to cover her head). So what St. Paul says here, he distinguishes elsewhere in a way that allows for some provision that women both speak and teach the faith.
In the quote from first Timothy above, the context seems rather clearly to be that of the family and marriage. I this passage Paul affirms the headship of the husband, as he does elsewhere (Ephesians 5:22, Colossians 3:18); Peter does so as well (1 Peter 3:1-6).
Here is another text in which Paul speaks of women being silent in the Church. In this case, the context seems to be liturgical:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church (1 Cor 14:34-35).
There are legitimate debates about how strictly this silence is to be interpreted. Generally, Church practice has understood this to mean that women are not to give the official teaching in the liturgy that we refer to as the sermon or homily. This stricture has been observed from antiquity down to the present day, by reserving the homily to the bishop, priest, or deacon. In more recent times, there have been allowances for women to serve as lectors, cantors, and singers. But the official teaching moment of the homily is still reserved to the male clergy, and the Magisterium consists of bishops and the Pope.
Prescinding from debate about how absolutely or strictly to interpret St. Paul’s restrictions, or whether or not some of these things are cultural artifacts that can be adjusted, what I really wish to focus on is the theological reasoning behind the differences between Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin. St. Paul writes,
For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner (1 Tim 2:13-14).
St. Paul begins by saying that Adam was formed first, followed by Eve. And thus here he teaches that the husband has headship, authority. As Paul says elsewhere, The husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the Church (Eph 5:22).
In terms of original sin, which is our concern in today’s blog, Paul says that Adam was not the one deceived; it was Eve who was deceived. Thus, St. Paul speaks of Eve’s sin as being different from Adam’s. She was deceived and so sinned. Adam, however, was not deceived. His sin lay elsewhere.
Of the fact of her deception, Eve is a witness, for she says, “The serpent tricked me and so I ate it” (Gen 3:13). But of Adam’s sin, God says, “You listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it’” (Gen 3:17). Adam’s sin lay in his willingness to allow his wife to tempt him.
Dear reader, you were warned that this was not going to be a politically correct post. Teachings such as these grate on modern ears, but of course that does not make them untrue.
Perhaps a little additional reflection may help to avoid knee-jerk reactions (such as gloating or anger). Adam’s and Eve’s sins are described differently; each’s sin can also be understood as a kind of weakness to which each was particularly susceptible: she to deception, he to being swayed by her feminine mystique and beauty.
St. Paul does not simply locate these two weaknesses in Adam and Eve as individuals, but also as male and female. Hence, St. Paul seems to teach here that a woman ought not to have a solemn teaching authority in the Church because of her tendency to be deceived.
Why might this be, that a woman could be more easily deceived? Perhaps it is rooted, paradoxically, in a woman’s strength. Among the strengths that women more generally manifest are natural spirituality and being sources of unity and peace in the heart of the family. And while these are wonderful strengths, in certain circumstances they can open one to deception. For if one seeks to make peace, one may compromise with error and sin. And though being open to spiritual things is of itself good, there are erroneous spiritual concepts to which one ought not to be open.
Not only is a woman possibly more susceptible to these, but should she cede to them, she can also have undue power over her husband and other men who might well be drawn by her beauty to set aside their better judgment.
To my mind, this is what St. Paul is getting at here in saying that Eve was deceived and Adam was not, therefore a woman cannot have teaching authority in the Church. There was also a warning in ancient Israel that men should not take foreign wives because they might confuse a man’s heart into the worship of their foreign gods. A man’s heart can easily be swayed by a beautiful and influential woman.
And thus, addressing a double threat, St. Paul forbids women to have teaching authority in the Church and ties it back to the archetypal incident of Adam and Eve: Eve was deceived and then was able to seduce her husband into sinning.
In modern times it may well be that St. Paul’s caution is affirmed by the modern problem of liberal Protestant denominations that have a large number of women leaders. These same denominations have departed significantly from the orthodox Christian faith, denying basic tenets of the Trinity, moral teaching, and biblical interpretation. This is not the only reason, but there seems to be a high correlation between denominations that embrace women leaders and a departure from orthodox Christian belief.
Have I been politically incorrect enough for you? Please feel free to leave your comments, but the chief focus I am interested in is the different descriptions of the “Sin of Adam” and Eve’s sin.
Can you explain why the angels screwed around with our babes and gave us a batch of “giants”?
How come there are no female angels for men to get?
Since angels are able to become corporeal, could they have become female as well as male?
Were the angels the Original Sexist?
There’s no record of Adam saying anything to Eve about the tree of knowledge, only God warning Adam about it.
The record also seems to show Adam was with Eve when she was deceived and took the fruit of the glory of self-effort. It appears Adam failed to warn Eve as God warned Adam, and he failed to protect her from the serpent .
Same old story. As true today as it was then. The lethal, self-destructive women’s’ movement and men applauding the whole way.
Because he was thinking with the wrong head. The moral of the story is the same as the line from the movie D.C.CAB.
"Don't let your d*ck ruin your life"
.
>> “Can you explain why the angels screwed around with our babes and gave us a batch of ‘giants’?” <<
As the word says: They were comely.
>> “How come there are no female angels for men to get?” <<
Because angels are “Sons of Yehova.” (special individual creations, not intended to reproduce)
>> “Since angels are able to become corporeal, could they have become female as well as male?” <<
They are corporeal, but are not a part of Space-time, thus must emit an image to be seen in space-time. They apparently can control that image.
.
Well, once we’ve said “Hey, that is a bad idea and here is why” and suffered the withereing response, our job is done.
At least until it is time to clean up afterwards.
**Adam was deceived by an amateur, Eve by a pro.**
I like that.
Something like that.
“They are corporeal, but are not a part of Space-time, thus must emit an image to be seen in space-time. They apparently can control that image.”
That “image” is real enough to eject sperm and corrupt the resulting offspring to be different from human.
.
The word is silent on the question of how they reproduced, so it is best not to go there.
.
” best not to go there.”
Yeah, that’s what I thought. Same answer I got from the Nuns at Catechism. I’m 76 years old, Catholic High School, Catholic College, and still getting non-answers.
“It’s a Mystery, accept it on Faith. And if you don’t, it’s Hell for you!”
Rant over, no need to reply. Thanks for your patience and attempt to educate me. My frustration is not directed to you. I am thank full that some, such as yourself, have been able to find the answers that I have not been able to find.
Wow! Msgr. Pope explains it all so clearly.
Thanks, Salvation.
Re: post #26
Buttons 12
**Adam was deceived by an amateur, Eve by a pro.**
I think Eve was less responsible for the ‘fall of man’ than Adam! Eve was tricked by the ‘Deceiver, the Father of Lies’. She had little possibility of resisting the evil serpent’s temptations, for the serpent possessed a far more superior nature than hers; so, thus he had every advantage during their encounter in Eden - call it a mismatch. By contrast, Adam was Eve’s inferior counterpart!
Adam? Oy vey, What a schmuck!! Eve told Adam that she had eaten the ‘forbidden fruit’, and instead of tossing her out of Eden, Adam responded with something truly brilliant like, “Duh, well, okay honey, then I’ll eat it too.”
IICorinthians 11:
1Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me.
2For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.
3But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.
God directly told Adam to stay from the devil, and Adam directly disobeyed..
Now Adam and Eve did not party with the devil in an apple orchard, they partied in a fig grove... Christ commanded us to learn the parable of the ‘fig’ tree. How many parties has anyone attended and ate an apple and then sewed ‘fig’ leaves together because that ‘fruit’ made you realize you were naked?
Eve was first, therefore Eve was weakest.
The hypothetical question here is "If Adam had not eaten would mankind still have fallen?"
It was politically incorrect enough that even i could understand it and it is right on.
Can you explain why the angels screwed around with our babes and gave us a batch of “giants”?
Mark 12:15
for when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
This is just my assumption on it,
but Angels obviously do not marry
The answers to your questions are the most ‘hidden’ from plain sight in the whole of the WORD... The book of Jude describes theses that rebelled with the devil. And Christ said that to ‘see’ the kingdom of God one must be born from above... The devil and a numbered ‘fallen’ rebels have already been judged to death... But guess what, they are going to get tossed out of heaven along with the devil to deceive all but the elect... WHY, because the majority accept the PC explanation shoveled out by the preacher class...
In Genesis 6, they are called the Sons of God... why? because they are in angelic bodies, but they left heaven and seduced women in an attempt to pollute the blood line to Christ... That is why God sent Noah and his family, to build an ark while these and their offspring, that defied God were destroyed. Flesh bodies that is... these ‘Sons of God’ refused to take this flesh journey and they are still working for the devil.
When God formed the Adam, it is said he was made in the image of God... Then God performed the first surgical procedure and removed that ‘curve’ and formed woman.
The phrase ‘fig leaf’ to this day means ‘hidden’...
Since there was no need for pigmented skin, I’m guessing they were albinos. Its amazing what I learn from the wise sages at FR.
Adam loved Eve, and I’m convinced would do anything for her, even to accept joining her in the curse of sin.
The “second Adam” loved humanity so much that he would do anything necessary to remove the curse of sin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.