Christian Theology 2: Day 1

This is irrelevant and it isn’t about theology but for whatever it’s worth:

We weren’t expecting this
Have we so much gone amiss
Along it came no less
That without much finesse
The thing that got to us
Has made us gloomy Gus
Everything is now a mess
All Rights Reserved © 2008 Pearlie Ng

We began our CT2 class today led by Christopher Cheah – on these topics:
- The Doctrine of Humanity
- The Image of God
- The Essential Human Nature
- The Fall and the Nature of Sin

I may have been doing too much exegesis because I find that I keep doing exegesis work today on the passages presented for the various topics.

For example, there was this section where we were looking at the account of the temptation that led to the fall. Christopher commented that it is a common view that the blame always fall on the woman for being the one that listened to the devil, replied him, got enticed by him, ate the forbidden fruit, and somehow got man to eat it too, thus causing the fall.

Scanning through the passage given, I began to see it differently. I know I am not in a biblical study class but humour me as I articulate this:

If we read Genesis 3:1 in a non-literal manner as how you might want to read the creation story in the same way, I find that the author may have purposed it in the way that he designed his story as a way to explain the original sin.

In the setting of the narrative, the serpent asked both man and woman present, the question tempting them to disobey. It was Eve who answered, who went along with the serpent's suggestion, twisted God's word, saw the fruit, took the fruit, ate it and passed it along to Adam. Adam was quiet through the entire transaction - he did not object or question. He willingly went along with it.

Had Adam did what Eve had done, the doctrine of the fall and the nature of sin could have been very different and the Feminist Theology could have been made stronger. But it was Eve who was set in the narrative to have done all that, with the husband's silent consent.

I propose that the author did this with the purpose to include woman into the fall and the act of disobedience. Just because the man was the rightful head of the union, the woman can in no way blame it solely on the man in saying that she was forced into it. Nor can a single woman claim that she is without sin, because according to the account she inherited the sin because Eve was the one who made the move with the consent of the man. (A single man can in no way claim he is without the original sin because being the head, Adam consented to Eve's action).

Can this exegesis carry water?

Again, I know I am suppose to talk about theology - let me get into it slowly, maybe tomorrow.

pearlie