Curse of the Feminine 1/2
Article Series - Toward an Egalitarian Ecclesia |
Though I have posited that I Timothy 2 is best understood in light of the Artemis Cult, I have not attempted to dispel the traditional reading of this text. In this post that is what I intend to do. The BC’s generally make two assertions regarding Paul’s reasons for women not being able to pastor. I will suggest here that these 2 assertions, as interpreted by the BC’s, cannot stand up under close biblical scrutiny. They suggest Paul forbids women to pastor/preach because 1. the woman was created 2nd and 2. The woman was deceived, not the man.
1. A Woman Cannot Be a Pastor B/c She Was Created Second
When we examine the Genesis text from which Paul draws his argument, we see that Genesis makes no reference to a pre-Fall hierarchy. That said, as I have already argued, there is no reason to read patriarchy into the pre-sin community.
Genesis NEVER draws any kind of headship related inferences in regards to her being created second. In fact, her creation sets her as the man’s equal – she is bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh – she is the same as me! Unlike those beasts who could not be my companion, she is like me! The emphasis of Genesis is NOT on their distinctiveness, it is on their SIMILARITIES!1 We run into problems when we attempt to read our arguments of male/female distinctions onto this text.
On another note, one of the dominant storylines in Genesis is the reversal of societal expectations. That is, especially as it relates to primogeniture, Genesis has a recurring theme of the youngest receiving the blessing, while the oldest gets the leftovers. This is a reversal of societal expectations – and the prevalence of this idea means there is no reason to assume coming second implies subordination within either the immediate Genesis narrative or the surrounding context of the whole book. In fact, that concept completely contradicts the current of the Genesis narrative.
Follow this up with the fact that the first creation account says they were created at the same time – if it is really that important that she was created second, why would the first account not have emphasized this as well?
2. A Woman Cannot Be a Pastor B/c She Was Deceived and Adam Was Not
This assertion is as fallacious as the first when it comes to the evidence in Genesis. First, it should be noted that the man was present when the temptation occurred. It was not that he was of somewhere trimming hedges. The serpent’s uses plural pronouns because he is speaking to both of them. Second, if he is present with Eve, and only she is deceived, why doesn’t he correct her? Why does he just stand by and let this happen? She tries to justify the boundaries Yahweh has set in their lives, and the man stands by silently. What is worse, being deceived or standing by with the truth and not rescuing others from falsehood? Sorry, I see the man’s sin as worse than the woman’s.
Second, supposing the man had a responsibility to teach the woman about God’s rules, he failed to do so. If she didn’t know the rules of Yahweh in relation to the Tree, it was not only her fault, it was his too. Maybe men should be ousted from their pastoral responsibilities because they have the universal characteristic of being negligent in their teaching roles!2
In the end, I find the traditional reading of Pauls’ 2 assertions lacking in evidence from the Genesis narrative. I see proof-texting mostly based on presuppositions. If we do not read our presuppositions from I Tim. 2 back onto Genesis, we see that Genesis does not provide support for our presuppositions.
If Paul supports the Complementarian view in I Timothy 2, then he is contradicting and prooftexting from Genesis. As we conservatives are not willing to say that, we need to reexamine how the texts relate to one another – because the Complementarian view simply doesn’t do justice to Genesis or Paul. My assertion is that the Artemis Cult allows Paul to read Genesis without contradiction and in its proper context.
- One of our problems in this discussion is that we want to emphasize the differences between the man and the woman [strength vs. nurture, for example] because we are reacting to Feminism. The problem with this, though, is that when we are reacting to something in our reading of a text, we always run into the danger of not allowing the text to speak to us. Genesis wants to emphasize the similarities of the man and the woman. Are there differences? – yes. But that is not the focus of Genesis. [↩]
- This completely fits the I Timothy context as well. In pagan temples women were allowed to take priestess positions upon conversion [whatever that meant]. They didn’t have to have experience, they just needed to be a vessel for prophetic utterances from the deity. These same women, upon converting to Christianity, would have wanted to teach in the Ephesian churches even though they were novices. Paul is creating a distinction between the pagan practice and the Christian practice. One cannot simply come into a Christian church [male or female] and start teaching without having a good knowledge of Christ. [↩]
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I am very interested in hearing what the counter-case from the complimentarians side. I don’t know if the onus is on Tom to completely take down all of the arguments on the otherside. The onus is on him to present the egalitarian case - something that he is doing rather well.
I’m interested as well. I agree with brad that my presentation was rather simplistic…being as this was already a long blog one can see why. However, I thought I presented the case fairly, at least as far as the basic argument goes.
But I’m more than willing to admit when I’m wrong, so I’m anticipating a good response. I’ve been wrong before….I will be wrong again.
And yeah, I don’t think the onus is on me either. I told Bob a few posts ago that I’m not trying to necessarily break down every BC argument. Rather, I want them to see that the Egalitarians have a point here, and that they should think twice before using this text as proof for male-only-pastorates. My arguments in no way disprove the BC position, the goal is simply that they recognize that I Timothy 2 cannot be used for their position.
Again, looking forward to your response, Brad. Thanks for engaging the discussion. I don’t want to create stereotypes. So, if I have, thank you for your upcoming efforts to correct them.
Cheers.
i’m not particularly saying that he has to tear down all the arguments but if he is going to cite specific ideas, the onus is on him to not misrepresent the other side.
in retrospect, his first point is one that complementarians do hold to but rather emphasize that men were created first, rather than emphasizing women being created second. the emphasis is on firsts not seconds. it’s subtle but one i’ll elaborate on later.
can you elaborate on ‘the first account’ idea? not heard that before…
as a side note, saying that complementarians are using 1 timothy as a proof-text i guess should shut down the whole discussion. since complementarians sincerely believe that 1 timothy does> set forth a precedent but egalitarians say its proof-texting, what more of a discussion is there to have? why should we discuss 1 timothy anymore? isn’t that an impasse of sorts?
sorry about the italics. i was trying to emphasize the word ‘does’ but messed up the coding. henry, can you help a brotha out?
brad…
in brief,
"first account" refers to the first creation story in Genesis (1:1-2:4), as contrasted with the second account in 2:5-3:23.
And I think you’re right… if Tom has successfully argued that Egalitarians have a valid reading of 1 Tim, we can’t use this text to settle the BC/E debate. Rather, we have to look at the larger biblical testimony, which Tom is doing well in his analysis of Gen 1-3.
if patriarchy is a result of the fall (and therefore a consequence of Sin), then it has no place in the Church.
i guess i was saying that tongue in cheek: if egalitarians say 1 timothy is proof-texting and complementarians are saying 1 timothy is rather a part of a larger exegetical construct for their belief on the issue, you inadvertendly ’shut down’ complementarians by saying that 1 timothy is proof-texting. it is a part of our exegesis of the issue.
Rather, we have to look at the larger biblical testimony
That’s what I feel we do…
Brad,
I’m looking forward to your post from the complementarian view.
I do think Tom has put together a very coherent argument, even though I still feel that it is incomplete in some areas, if you buy the Artemis cult as the background. Otherwise it falls apart. I have really enjoyed this exchange of ideas about the role of men and women in the church and it has been conducted in a very informative fashion without the loss of anyone’s temper during the exchange. Let us keep that up.
Hey Tom,
You say:
“If Paul supports the Complementarian view in I Timothy 2, then he is contradicting and prooftexting from Genesis.”
I don’t see why Paul (when read as a Complementarian) is contradicting anything in Genesis) It seems that the only way Paul might be contradicting Genesis is if Genesis claimed either (1) Women should be allowed to be pastors or (2) the facts that eve was 2nd and was decieved should not prevent women from becoming pastors. But Genesis doesn’t seem to claim anything at all on the specific issue of who should be a pastor. There is nothing inconsistent about Paul later providing reasons that women should not be pastors even if those reasons are not presented in Genesis. So it seems that the complementarian could hold that Genesis is silent or even provides evidence against their view, but still maintain that I timothy settles the matter in their favor.
Philip,
Paul is certainly using the ideas he teases out from Genesis to support the argument that he is making in 2nd Timothy. He might not be saying that Genesis clearly says that women can/not be pastors, but he is using Genesis’s authority on the relationship between women and men to cement the claims in 2nd Timothy. If Genesis can be shown (as I think Tom shows here and in his next post) to support the Egalitarian view of women, then it cannot be used to support a Complementarian view, which is what Paul is doing (under the Complementarian interpretation) in 2nd Timothy. So, if Paul is arguing for Complementarianism and Genesis is arguing for Egalitarianism, then Paul is prooftexting. Since Paul, according to the conservative (i.e. the Bible is internally consistent in its teachings) view, cannot be prooftexting, then he must not be arguing for Complementarianism.
Hey Honzo, Thanks for the response.
Couldn’t the Complementarian say that Paul does rely on Genesis’s account of the reationship between men and women but only in a very limited sense? Paul only relies on Genesis to support the claims that Adam was formed first and Eve was the one decieved. Paul then uses these two claims in an argument for complementarianism, but he is not saying that Genesis used the two claims in this way. Paul could be making a new argument using premises found in Genesis to support a conclusion not found in Genesis. Even if Genesis does not in any way suggest that these two claims support complemetarianism, Paul can still use them in an argument for complementarianism. As long as the story in Genesis does not claim that women can be pastors or claim anything that entails that women can be pastors, then Paul would not be contradicting Genesis by using claims found in Genesis to argue for his conclusion.
If Genesis can be shown (as I think Tom shows here and in his next post) to support the Egalitarian view of women, then it cannot be used to support a Complementarian view, which is what Paul is doing (under the Complementarian interpretation) in 2nd Timothy. So, if Paul is arguing for Complementarianism and Genesis is arguing for Egalitarianism, then Paul is prooftexting.
But this could also mean the those who see egalitarianism in Genesis have misunderstood Genesis if Paul sees complementariansim in Genesis 2-3. The egalitarian would have to reinterpret their views of Genesis to fit more in line. I only say that if Paul were indeed arguing for complementariansim. But if Paul and Genesis are shown to understand the relationship between man and woman as egalitarian and not complementarian, then complementarians need to reinterpret the texts correctly.
Hank,
You are right, if we hold to internal doctrinal consistency throughout the old and new testaments and Paul argues that Genesis does support a comp. view, then egalitarians need to re-evaluate genesis. I will grant that a surface reading supports this, but I think that when you dig deeper, the opposite is true.
Philip,
I think I am now picking up what you are putting down. Are you saying that they are supporting arguments that are not essential to the case of complementarianism?
Phillip,
Just to be clear: You assert that Paul is making a new argument based on premises found in Genesis, even though Genesis did not intend to speak to that issue.
First, this is an interesting assertion. I’ve been thinking about it for a few days.
Here’s my thoughts: if we want to argue from this perspective, we should begin, not by maintaining Paul is saying something new from Genesis (a position I’ve not read any BC ever take), but that the prefall human society was a patriarchal one. Paul cannot appeal to a text which is silent or against a BC perspective in support of a BC perspective. That is not only contrary to the passage (as I have argued), but it is prooftexting. No Bible believer wants to say Paul is a prooftexter or contradicts other scripture.
Also, the issue isn’t just women in ministry/pastorate. The issue is equality. The pre-sin community was egalitarian according to Genesis, thus Paul cannot use Genesis as a prooftext from a patriarchal church. That’s bad hermeneutics.
Again, Paul, in my opinion, can’t be arguing for patriarchy b/c it did not exist pre-Fall. Thus, Paul is not saying something new - he’s reminding the Ephesian women that the biblical narrative doesn’t support their matriarchy.
So, in essence, I’m saying we can say all we want that Paul is arguing for patriarchy based on explicit or implicit evidences from Genesis, but I see nothing in the text which supports this. This, among other things, is why I think my Artemis reading works so well.
Hope I have understood you correctly. If not, let me know and we can go through it again.
Again, interesting thoughts, man. Sorry if its repetitive or convoluted - I’m having trouble voicing my thoughts tonight….not good since I’m writing a paper tonight :)
Tom
Hey Tom, Thanks for the comments. I take it that you claim the following:
(G) If the Genesis account is silent on or gives evidence against the BC (complimentarian?) perspective, then Paul could not be using claims found in Genesis as premises in an argument for complimentarianism without contradicting the Genesis account.
I’m inclined to think that (G) is false. I think that it is false because I think that it is sometimes acceptable to use claims found in scriptural passages to argue for conclusions not found in those scriptural passages. Suppose I want to construct an argument for the conclusion that Jesus was crucified. In order to give my argument I need to establish the premise that Jesus actually lived. It seems that it would be fine for me to use Mark chapter 1 as evidence for the premise that that Jesus actually lived, even though Mark 1 is silent on the conclusion I want to argue for using this premise (that Jesus was crucified). I am not contradicting Mark 1 by using it in this way.
On my (very tenative) view, Paul in 1st Timothy is giving an informal argument for the conclusion that women should not play a certain type of leadership role in the NT church. He uses two premises which he derives from Genesis: (1) Adam was formed first and (2) The woman was deceived. He is undoubtably using the Genesis account to support these premises, however, (just as using Mark 1 to support my premise does not mean that Mark 1 must say that Jesus was crucified) using these premises in his argument does not mean that Genesis must say that women should not play a certain leadership role.
Now of course you are right that if Genesis gives us strong evidence that women should be allowed to be leaders in the NT church then the complementarian interpretaion of Paul is pretty implausible. However, it seems unlikely to me that Genesis would tell us much of anything on the specific question of who should play certain roles in the NT church. In particular it seems that I could affirm both of the following two claims: (A) The prefall human society was not partriarchal and (B) Women should not be pastors in the NT church.
I don’t really know much at all about biblical interpretation so let me know if I’m making any obvious mistakes here. Also, could someone define ‘prooftexting’ for me?
sorry for the length and good luck on your paper
Philip
Thanks Phillip. Your thoughts are coherent and gracious. Thank you.
Prooftexting - taking a passage out of its original context and disregarding its original intention, then applying it to a context and giving it an intention which the original author did not intend.
Here’s how I would make my preliminary argument
1. As represented in Genesis, the pre-sin community was egalitarian
2. The church community is the new creation of God which is to reflect the pre-sin community (an assertion drawn from other places in the NT)
3. Therefore, the church should be egalitarian.
Now, specifically with Paul in I Timothy 2
1. Genesis does not espouse a patriarchal pre-sin community
2. Paul relies on Genesis in support of his claims in I Timothy 2
3. For Paul to base patriarchy on Genesis (a text not betraying any form of patriarchy) would be to misuse Genesis (prooftext) for his own purposes
4. As we do not wish to affirm premise 3, we must conclude that Paul uses Genesis the right way.
5. Therefore, Paul must be quoting from Genesis to support an egalitarian church
6. I have posited one way of examining this text which supports an egalitarian reading (Artemis).
Also, you reject G because “it is sometimes acceptable to use claims found in scriptural passages to argue for conclusions not found in those scriptural passages.” There may be some validity to this claim, as you assert with your example of Mk. 1.
However, if we make a claim that goes against a scripture, then we are are wrong. A patriarchal agenda goes against the flow of the Genesis narrative. The point of the Genesis narrative lies in equality and sameness, not distinctions and hierarchy. Therefore, to use the Genesis narrative for purposes of patriarchy and hierarchy is to prooftext. This is why, if Paul wants to argue for Patriarchy, it is hermeneutically necessary for him to go outside of the first 3 chapters of Genesis (there’s plenty of support outside of that).
Okay, I’m enjoying the discussion and I hope I am not talking in circles.
Cheers.
um… Paul totally prooftexts all the time.
pretty much any ancient rabbi did.
this was considered pretty acceptable hermeneutic.
for instance… Paul quotes "Abraham was justified by faith" to prove that salvation comes apart from works; James quotes the same verse to argue exactly the opposite: that works are integral to the process of salvation.
maybe OUR hermeneutic is flawed?
JR, while I agree and think the search for internal consistency in scripture is a lost cause…it seems that Tom is actually using internal consistency (which most complimentarians I know abide by) against those who abide by it. If someone upholds internal consistency, they must reconcile Paul in the face of Genesis (as Tom has attempted). If one believes in internal consistency, they cannot allow Paul to prooftext…therefore a hermeneutical decision must be made. Going by what Tom has put forth, that should lead to a reanalysis of the domineering patriarchy usually read in “Paul,” especially in the letter to Timothy.
Now, if one throws out internal consistency (as I do), then we ultimately must “pick and choose” (which has such a nasty connotation even though everyone must do so). I’ve become perfectly fine with that. Reckognizing that there are portions of scripture that I outright disagree with (and likely always will) has been a long, but freeing process. That doesn’t mean I just rip them out of my Bible (I’m looking at you Martin Luther). It means that I see how various writers in my faith tradition’s history have had a different view point than myself, and I must try to understand where they are coming from and what work they are doing within Christianity.
I don’t really know where I’m going with this. Obviously, we must continually challenge our individual and communal hermeneutics. I’ve found myself leaning toward what Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza has put forth, in saying that we must always strive for a hermeneutic that promotes justice and liberation of the marginalized (though not necessarily along the dangerous lines that liberation theology can ultimately land on). It’s not about finding the perfect scientific method of studying scripture to get the perfect meaning…that’s never been a legitimate reality. What’s important is that we allow God to speak through the texts toward bringing about His kingdom here on earth (a kingdom which I would say embodies justice and liberation). If this means stepping into someone else’s hermeneutic and using it do bring about such ends, then so be it I say. :)
I hope that bit of free verse made some sort of sense…
Tom, I think your last comment was quite good and made your argument very clear. A couple of points:
I do not think think that Paul (on the story I am telling) would be prooftexting. On the story I am telling Paul is not giving Genesis a new meaning or intention. He is not saying that Genesis supports the complementarian position. In my Mark 1 example, I would not be guilty of prooftexting, I am not saying that Mark 1 was intended to support the view that Jesus was crucified, I am merely using it to establish a premise in my argument. So too Paul (on my story) is merely using Genesis to establish premises which were in fact presented in Genesis (Adam was formed first and Eve was deceived). He is not saying that Genesis supports complementarianism.
Also, it does not seem obvious to me that it would be bad for a NT author to prooftext an OT passage. Prooftexting a passage does not seem to entail contradicting a passage. So if NT authors have the authority to create new scripture, why couldn’t they also have the authority to give a new meaning to an OT passage?
Having said all that, I now realize that my interpretation depends on rejecting premise (2) in your preliminary argument
2. The church community is the new creation of God which is to reflect the pre-sin community (an assertion drawn from other places in the NT)
I have been assuming that there could be significant differences between how people lived prefall and how we should live today. If this assumption is false then it seems like (if the prefall community was egalitarian) my interpretation of Paul can’t be right. I don’t think I have a knockdown argument against (2) but I will offer a couple reasons for doubting it:
a. There are clearly some differences between prefall life and how we should live today e.g. we should have a police force now, we should wear clothes now (christian nudists aside:).
b. A significant difference between prefall and today is that people behave immorally nowadays both outside and inside the church. This generates a whole new set of moral duties that we now have to undertake that people prefall did not have to deal with. e.g. duties to forgive, seek justice, and in general respond correctly to people’s immoral behavior.
c. It seems plausible to think that a community that has to deal with and respond to immoral behavior might need to be organized quite differently than a community that did not have these concerns. In particular the community dealing with sin might need a different type of leadership than the community not dealing with sin. Thus it seems plausible that God would give different instructions concerning leadership to the NT church than he gave to the prefall community.
Again I’m not sure how convincing any of this is but I feel like the truth or falsity of (2) is the crux of the matter.
-Philip
Phillip…
the whole of the New Testament argues against you. Jesus was clearly reestablishing the relationship with God that we lost in Genesis 3. Paul repeatedly speaks of the Church as a new creation that is redeemed from the fallen one. And we can hardly read the Revelation without noting the explicit Genesis imagery in the description of the Church (chs 21-22).
Christian theology teaches a return to the pre-Fall nature of humanity (we won’t argue here against the possibility or necessity of of anything as internally inconsistent as a ‘Christian police force’). The Church is meant to be Eden returned to Earth, or - as Jesus taught us to pray - "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven".
And 1 John is pretty sure that Sin has no place in the Church. We would perhaps do well to question your conception of Sin as it relates to the NT’s understanding of the same word.
Hey JR, how’s it going?
There might be many ways in which the church is supposed to be similar to prefall humanity without thinking that they should be similar in respect to the issues I mentioned. It seems true that we should have the same type of relationship with God as existed prefall, that we should be redeemed from from the fall and that we should no longer be ruled by a corrupt nature. However, I don’t think that removes the main difference I’ve pointed out. People in current times behave immorally (perhaps I was incorrect to use sin as interchangable with immoral, so I’ll just stick with immoral). Now of course there is no place for being immoral in the church. It is never the case that people should act immorally. But as a matter of fact, people do act immorally. I suppose you could say that there is no immoral behavior in the church because all people who act wrongly aren’t really part of the church (this seems unlikely to me), However, even if that is the case, it is still true that christians today often encounter immoral behavior and the fact that we encounter immoral behavior still means that we are going to have to fulfill moral duties that people prefall did not have to fulfill.
Of course we should want God’s Kingdom to come on earth. But since we are in a different moral situation now then people prefall were in we might have very different obligations than they did with respect to how we should bring about God’s Kingdom. Our duty to evangelize seems like another good example of the difference. Prefall there would be no need to organize in a manner that promotes evangelism. However, there might well be such a need in the NT church.
So my suggestion is that there are some differences between how people behaved prefall and how we should behave now e.g. responding to immoral behavior and evangelizing. And these differences may explain the need to organize the church somewhat differently than the prefall society. Do you think scripture goes against this suggestion?
-Philip
ps I’d be interested in hearing your views on what makes an action sinful?
Phillip,
How might patriarchy/hierarchy stifle immoral behavior? It seems obvious to me, at least from human and church history, that patriarchy encourages power differences which inevitably get abused.
Also, taking my reading of I Tim. 2, there is still no reason to assume Paul is arguing for Patriarchy.
Good discussion, gentlemen.
Hey Tom,
You’re right, I haven’t offered any reason to think we should interpret Paul as a complementarian. I’ve just been trying to show that we could interpret him that way even if Genesis paints a more egalitarian picture.
As to the question of how limiting who can play leadership roles could lesson the amount of immorality or make things better in general? I think explaining this is probably the biggest problem for complementarianism. One thing I’ve heard said here is that men are naturally more suited to be leaders and thus restricting who could lead to men would provide better leadership overall. However, this is an empirical claim which seems pretty questionable. I guess the two ways to defend it would be (1) say that God just designed men to be better leaders. or (2) tell some sort of evolutionary story to the effect that men would end up developing better leadership skills. Either way the fact that we have seen lots and lots of really bad male leaders and many good female leaders seems to undermine this way of looking at things.
Another response would be to go skeptical and claim that we don’t know why God decided to limit who could be a leader but that there must be some greater good that was accomplished by this. Somehow the consequences of God’s limiting leadership produced good or prevented evil. (This would be similar to the skeptical response to the problem of evil.) The skeptical response could maintain that we should not expect to be able to see all of the reasons why God acts as he does, but we can still be confident that he has good reasons. This response seems to have more promise than the first one.
To be honest i’ve always thought the philosophical case against complementarianism was pretty good. From a consequentialist perspective you’re right that limiting who can be in leadership would seem to produce bad results. From a more deontological perspective, if we think justice requires something like equality of opportunity then not allowing women to be leaders could turn out to be unjust. Despite that I’ve always stayed a complementarian because I was pretty convinced by the scriptural evidence for it. In particular I’d always thought that the 1 timothy passage sealed the deal, maybe I should rethink that in light of your artemis account.
So I guess I don’t really know why limiting who could be a leader would stifle immoral behavior, maybe the complementarian should just maintain that we shouldn’t expect to be able to know.
Philip
Phillip,
Thank you for your honest response. It is so difficult in these discussions not to let our pride get in the way of us really wrestling with the issue. Thank you for being such a good example of humility - there is much I can learn from you.
Another option taken by old school BC’s, (an argument rejected by most modern BC’s because of it’s implications) is that God created women intellectually deficient - which explains why Eve fell into sin first and would place the emphasis on Paul’s comment that it was she who was deceived, not Adam. As I said, though, most BC’s reject this now and study after study has demonstrated the on par with men intellectual capabilities of women. That and personal experience - my wife is brilliant…I can’t keep up with her.
thanks for a great discussion, man. I look forward to engaging you more on this and other topics. Your humility is an example to me.
excuse me, maybe i missed it…
could someone please define “deceived” for me? especially, could someone please explain how eve’s “deception” qualifies her sin as diffferently than adam’s? does that occur anywhere else in the bible?
perhaps deceived is not a defficiency as much as it is an accurate accounting of what happened. eve thought she could be like God because of the snake’s counsel. she was mistaken and deceived. perhaps, this is why God does not directly curse her. because she owned up.
i still don’t understand how this argument works: because adam’s sin was more grave, we acknowledge adam as the head of the human race. i’m with tom. that’s a lousy recommendation for leadership, in my book.
as to the impact of eve’s being “second”.
1. gen 1:27 reads “God created man in the image of himself, in the image of God he created HIM, male and female he created THEM.” in essense, God creates a single human in two persons. which also converses nicely with trinitarian theology btw.
2. i’ve said it before, the flow of the genesis account goes from less to more sophisticated forms of life. according to the schematic of the text, eve is at the apex, rather than the tail end of creation.
if you hold that first means authority, then adam is under the authority of the earth. 3. the same holds true for the rib argument. if eve is subjugated to adam via the rib, then adam is subjugated to the earth via the clay.
4. primogeniture is a much later practice that is concerned almost exclusively with property distribution. their is no personal property in the garden, no inheritence. if you want to spiritualize inheritence, then eve is the only one who leaves the garden with anything resembling a blessing. in this, she resembles the younger brothers in many patriarchal families who came into family blessing despite their birth order.
as a complementarian, these two examples you pose makes us out to be horrible exegetes. i’ll trust that you are dealing with ’surfacy’ connections and you will be moving on to more of what a true complementarian might take from genesis and how it impacts his/her theology on this issue. this is an incomplete representation of ‘our side.’
i’ll try to post later today what i see as more substantial exegesis from genesis and its correlation to paul’s words in 1 timothy…