Posted on 02/18/2019 8:32:08 AM PST by Salvation
The Fall of Man – Hendrik Goltzius (1616)
In Friday’s blog post, I sought to explore the details of original sin and to convey that there are subtleties and stages to it. The sin was more than eating a piece of fruit; there were things that led up to it, both externally and internally.
Today I would like to consider how the sacred text speaks of the sin of Adam and differentiates it to some extent from that of Eve. Biblically, original sin is Adam’s sin, not Eve’s (cf Rom 5:12 inter al).
It is not that Eve did not sin, nor that her actions have no interest for us, but as the head of his household and of the human family, it is Adam who bore the responsibility and thereby incurred the “original sin,” which comes down to all of us.
Today’s post isn’t going to be very politically correct, because in striving to differentiate Eve’s sin from Adam’s I will take up a controversial text from St. Paul. It does not comport well with modern notions, so it is important to consider a couple of points before beginning.
First, we ought to remember that it is a sacred text, and even if St. Paul may draw some of his reflections on the cultural experience of his time, he also gives theological reasons for what he writes.
Second, this is only one text from one author. Further, what St. Paul says rather absolutely in the verse that follows, he qualifies to some extent in other writings.
With this in mind, let’s examine the controversial text and strive to see the distinctions between Adam’s sin and 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).
Upon reading the text like this, so astonishingly out of step with modern thinking, many are prone to dismiss it out of hand as a relic of a past dark age. It is debatable whether this edict that women should not teach or have authority over men was merely a disciplinary norm that need not be observed today. It is also debatable how absolute Paul’s words were, for Paul speaks elsewhere of women as catechists (e.g., Phoebe in Romans 16), spiritual leaders, and benefactors (e.g., Lydia in Acts 16) in the early church communities. And in Corinthians, he says that when a woman speaks in the assembly, she is to cover her head (1 Cor 11:5). So, what St. Paul says in his Letter to Timothy is distinguished elsewhere in a way that allows for women to both speak and teach the faith.
In the passage from Timothy, the context seems to be that of the family and marriage. St. Paul affirms the headship of the husband here just as he does in Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 as does Peter in 1 Peter 3:1-6.
There is another text in which Paul speaks of women being silent in the church. The context in the following passage 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).
Here again, there is legitimate debate about how strictly the silence described in this passage is to be interpreted. Generally, Church practice has understood it 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 to the present day; the homily can only be given by a bishop, priest, or deacon. In more recent times women have been permitted to serve as lectors, cantors, and singers, but the official teaching moment of the homily is still reserved for the male clergy.
While some prefer to see St. Paul’s observations as cultural artifacts that can be adjusted, we need to see that Paul sets forth theological reasoning for the difference between Adam’s sin and Eve’s.
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, then Eve. So, here he teaches, as he does in other passages, that the husband has headship, authority. The husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the Church (Eph 5:22).
In terms of original sin, St. Paul says that Adam was not the one deceived, it was Eve who was deceived. Thus, St. Paul speaks of Eve’s sin as different from Adam’s. She was deceived and so sinned. Adam was not deceived; his sin lay elsewhere.
Eve herself speaks of her own deception: “The serpent tricked me and so I ate it” (Gen 3:13). Of Adam’s sin, God says, “Because 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). Thus, Adam’s sin lay in his willingness to allow his wife to tempt him. These sorts of teachings grate on modern ears, but this does not make them untrue.
Perhaps a little additional reflection may help to avoid knee-jerk reactions to either gloat or become angry. Adam’s and Eve’s sins are described differently and can also be understood as weaknesses to which each was particularly susceptible: she to deception, he to being swayed by Eve’s feminine mystique and beauty.
St. Paul does not simply ascribe these two weaknesses to Adam and Eve as individuals but also as male and female. Hence, St. Paul seems to teach that a woman ought not to have 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 her strength. Women are more naturally spiritual and inclined to be a source of unity and peace in the family. While these are wonderful strengths, in certain circumstances they can provide an easy opening for deception. If one seeks to make peace too easily, one may compromise with error and sin; and though being open to spiritual things is of itself good, one should not be open to erroneous spiritual concepts.
Further, should a woman cede to these, she can have undue power over her husband and other men who may be drawn by her beauty into setting aside their better judgment.
To my mind, this is St. Paul’s point when he says that Eve was deceived and Adam was not, and therefore a woman cannot have teaching authority in the Church. There was a similar warning in ancient Israel that a man should not take a foreign wife because she might confuse his heart into the worship of her foreign gods. A man’s heart can easily be swayed by a beautiful and influential woman.
Addressing this 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 to sin.
In modern times it may well be that St. Paul’s caution is affirmed by the problems in liberal Protestant denominations that have a large number of female leaders. It is these very denominations that have departed significantly from the orthodox Christian faith, denying basic tenets of the Trinity, moral teaching, and biblical interpretation. This was not caused solely by the presence of women in leadership roles, but there is a high correlation between denominations that have embraced women as leaders and departure from orthodox Christian beliefs.
Have I been politically incorrect enough for you? Please feel free to comment below, but keep in mind that the focus I am interested in is the different descriptions of the Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin.
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Interesting. Thank you for posting.
Scriptures are far, far more insightful and enduring than political correctness.
Thy first father hath sinned, and thy teachers have transgressed against me.Many (not all) understand the “first father” (or forefather, literally) here to be Adam.
— Isaiah 43:27
Eve was deceived first by the serpent and succumbed to the temptation to possess the knowledge of God (in a sense to be equal to God). The part that has always troubled me is that upon that first bite, and becoming aware of her sin, she then offered Adam the second bite. He succumbed to the temptation, and I’m guessing here, the new awareness in Eve’s eyes that he had never witnessed before. I would call it a seductive look. To me that is why women should not be permitted to teach men or hold positions of authority in the church. Even when we come to the knowledge of our error we do not confess it but try to entice others to follow us. But that’s just my opinion. Did Adam sin? Yes. But was Eve instrumental in his downfall? Yes.
“These sorts of teachings grate on modern ears, but this does not make them untrue.” AMEN!
***Bump*** for later reading.
Once again, Pope, Charles nails it. It has occurred to me that in addition to being the start of the Salvation Plan for mankind, Eden was the first “honey trap” designed for Satan. God made Eve so cute and nice that Satan could not resist messing with her. He chose poorly!
“And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner”
And, generally speakinv, aren’t women more easily deceived than men even today?
“Thus, Adam’s sin lay in his willingness to allow his wife to tempt him.”
Nothing has changed there. Men are suckers to women’s advances. The little head downstairs takes over.
So women are easily conned by shysters and men are easily conned by women.
That, in a nutshell, is the history of the world.
There are a lot of contradictions in this article and commentary of the story of Adam and Eve.
First it is silly to ascribe to all women the failure of the first.
How did Eve sin? She was beguiled by Satan but Eve knew what she wanted, she wanted knowledge. She wanted to progress. She wanted to be “like God”.
Adam had a problem when confronted by Eve with the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Apparently he had no desire to progress and be like God, does that mean that all his male descendants would want the same thing, I think not. In this I think the Apostle Paul erred, but to be fair that was the thinking in his time.
Adam wanted to be with Eve and Adam wanted to obey the commandment to replenish the earth. Without Eve he must have realized that he could not.
Adam could not obey both commandments, that is to replenish the earth and not partake of the fruit of knowledge so he broke the lesser of the two commandments. He did break the commandment to not partake of the fruit. There is no way one can successfully make an argument that he did not break a commandment for he did eat of the fruit. Because he partook of the fruit death entered into the world but along with death because he partook also came new life into the world as he knew his wife Eve and had children, therefore we are here.
Nice post; tied to scripture
Adam sin contained the lack of seeing that God could solve the problem. You can always obey all the commands of God. God could have created another women. Maybe, God could have used Adam to save Eve. God’s ways are above our ways. And always has the answer. We need to see Him as God.
Genesis would be a very different book had 1) Adam run toward God rather than away, and 2) had he taken the blame for his wife rather than shift the blame to her.
It’s always better to face God’s judgement straight up, than to run from it. In the end God loves you. If you have to face judgement, that’s your better choice.
Modern ears need to be grated upon.
No. The Truth is policially incorrect ... please keep posting it.
Not only in the Church, but in politics, also. I've heard it said that it was a mistake to allow women the vote - I kind of wonder about that because of all that social justice and pc crap going on out there. Probably all women-based, and I can say that as I'm a woman.
Can’t wait to read this! Thanks for the post Salvation.
It’s the woman’s fault.....
On a side note, at the peak of Venice’s wealth and power, a new priest was asked to minister to a wealthy but contentious congregation. Their last several priests had gone foul of one of the two major factions in the church, so had been displaced, some after their first sermon, which was broadly interpreted as supportive or hostile to the factions.
So, knowing of this, his first sermon was on the sin of Adam. And the second was on the sin of Eve. And the third on the sin of Adam again. etc. And he did this for decades, often carrying on extended arguments with his previous sermons. And yet he offended no one enough to get himself fired. Some congregants made it a point to go out of their way to come to church just for the sermons, like they were a serialized story.
And in the process, he was able to integrate more traditional topics of sermons, in reference to his debate about Adam and Eve. He retired in good standing, and by that time, the contentiousness of that congregation had ended.
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.