Cheryl Schatz

Mark,
Here is one other quote that you may accept since it includes the view of Calvin:

The Messianic interpretation of the ‘seed of the woman’ appears in TJ and Targ. Jer., where the v. is explained of the Jewish community and its victory over the devil “in the days of King Messiah.” The reference to the person of Christ was taught by Irenæus, but was never so generally accepted in the Church as the kindred idea that the serpent is the instrument of Satan. Mediæval exegetes, relying on the ipsa of the Vulg., applied the expression directly to the Virgin Mary; and even Luther, while rejecting this reference, recognised an allusion to the virgin birth of Christ. In Protestant theology this view gave way to the more reasonable view of Calvin, that the passage is a promise of victory over the devil to mankind, united in Christ its divine Head.

J. Skinner: A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis. (pgs 80–81).

Mark,
You asked:

I agree that we have a corrupt sinful nature, however i disagree that children are not born ‘sinful’. I can’t see how you say one while rejecting the other. MAybe you can expand on it for me? At what age therefore do children become sinful? When does there corrupt nature kick in if not at birth?

Sin nature is not sin. It is an inherited propensity to sin but it is not sin itself. One has a sin nature, but one doesn’t become a sinner until one actually sins. For example a baby still in the womb is not a sinner since he/she has not committed any sin. To say that the unborn are sinners is to go beyond what Scripture actually says and this is one of the reasons why so many are fighting against the teaching of the sin nature.

When a child lies or steals or whatever, they then are sinning and before that they have sin nature that makes sinning natural, but is not actual until they sin.

Regarding those who outright reject the notion of original sin i must ask therefore how you even understand grace. Without a proper understanding of sin, the offensiveness of it to God, our inabilty to be sinless, i can’t even fathom how grace is attractive. It seems like a cheap version of grace. You are either ‘dead’ in your sin according to Eph 2 or you are not. Maybe someone can express how they understand what the bible teaches about sin if Augustine and the early church was incorrect?

I look forward to reading an answer from one of those who believes that they have no sin nature.

I think that the verse about our being a “slave to sin” is a better one to use:

Romans 6:6 (NASB)
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Here we see the “old self”. How does one who believes that there is no sin nature understand that? And what is the “body of sin”?

How can those who believe that they have no sin nature understand the issue of “slavery to sin”? If they have no sin nature, then they should be able to just stop sinning.

Mark,
You said:

I think the point of the verse is to show the enmity between the two offspring, the corruption of relationships because of sin, firstly between God and people, then between people and people and finally between people and animals. To say that one is victorious over the other is eisegesis not exegesis.

The problem with your view is that the New Testament authors like Paul and the author of Hebrews say Genesis 3:15 as being a battle between the virgin born Jesus and those who are in Christ and satan and those who are his followers. None of them saw this verse as being a battle between merely humans and humans or between humans and animals. That interpretation doesn’t fly with the NT.

5. That said I am not saying that Jesus did not conquer over Satan, I believe that to be true, but the specific verse in Gen 3 grammatically does not say this, it’s read into the verse. Jesus conquering over Satan is established from other passages not Gen 3.

You are then going to have some difficulty with the direct reference back to Genesis 3:15 by Romans 16:20. Any interpretation of the promise of God that makes it as merely a fight between humans and animals and that the humans win over the animals is seriously missing the point of the gospel preached in Genesis.

Mark,

You said:

4. Finally I would just like to point out how you understand the seed of the woman in Gen 3. you said “It was God who said that the seed of the woman would defeat the serpent.” Now I don’t think this is actually correct. The verse in Gen does not say that the seed of the woman would ‘crush’ the head of the serpent. The NIV is unhelpful here. The Hebrew uses the exact same word for the serpent and the woman, namely the serpent’s seed will bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, and the woman’s seed would bruise the head of the serpents seed. Nothing in this verse indicates that the woman’s seed would be victorious or crush the serpent.

Paul alludes to Genesis 3:15 and interprets the crushing as being done to satan in Romans 16:20

Romans 16:20 (NASB)
20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet…

And in Hebrews 2:14 the crushing is defined by the term “render powerless” as this is what the crushing means:

Hebrews 2:14 (NASB)
14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,

John MacArthur shows that the seed of the serpent is satan himself operating within his followers and it is satan who is defeated by Jesus:

3:15 After cursing the physical serpent, God turned to the spiritual serpent, the lying seducer, Satan, and cursed him. bruise your head … bruise His heel. This “first gospel” is prophetic of the struggle and its outcome between “your seed” (Satan and unbelievers, who are called the Devil’s children in John 8:44) and her seed (Christ, a descendant of Eve, and those in Him), which began in the garden. In the midst of the curse passage, a message of hope shone forth—the woman’s offspring called “He” is Christ, who will one day defeat the Serpent. Satan could only “bruise” Christ’s heel (cause Him to suffer), while Christ will bruise Satan’s head (destroy him with a fatal blow). Paul, in a passage strongly reminiscent of Gen. 3, encouraged the believers in Rome, “And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet shortly” (Rom. 16:20). Believers should recognize that they participate in the crushing of Satan because, along with their Savior and because of His finished work on the cross, they also are of the woman’s seed. For more on the destruction of Satan, see Heb. 2:14,15; Rev. 20:10.
MacArthur, J. J. The MacArthur Study Bible (Ge 3:15).

And finally a quote from an Old Testament commentary written in the 1800’s that describes probably in the very clearest manner why the virgin birth was necessary:

I. The person here predicted—
[It was the Lord Jesus Christ; who was in a peculiar way “the seed of the woman:” for he was formed in the womb simply by the agency of the Holy Ghost, and was born of a pure virgin altogether without the intervention of man. And this was necessary: for, had he been born like other men, he would have been in the loins of Adam, like other men; and therefore would, like them, have been partaker of his guilt and corruption. But, being the sole and immediate workmanship of God, he was absolutely perfect, and therefore capable of sustaining the office of a Saviour for fallen man: whereas, if he had been otherwise formed, he would have needed a Saviour for himself, and been incapable of effecting salvation for others. Thus you see, that when it was impossible for man to restore himself to God, God “laid help for him upon One that was Mighty;” on one who, being God and man in one person, was able to effect for men all that their necessities required. As man, he could atone for sin; and as God, he could render that atonement available for all who should trust in him.]

Simeon, C. Horae (1832-63). Homileticae Vol. 1: Genesis to Leviticus (pgs 37–38)

Mark,
You said:

3. About the incarnation. First I must confess that I believe that this doctrine is probably the hardest to understand, even above the Trinity. How Jesus could leave glory, humble himself to earth and be both fully God and fully man is very difficult to understand, let alone explain. However I don’t see what you have said as solving the difficulty. You seemed to imply that not accepting your approach diminishes Jesus humanity- I don’t think it does. Jesus is fully human because he humbled himself to become human.

Mark, I think you are confusing things here. Jesus’ humbling Himself deals with his Deity. This explains how He could set aside his right to act independently as God.

The bible declares that he was tempted in everyway like us, so he was fully human, yet he withheld temptation.

Temptation doesn’t make one human. The angels were tempted to rebel but they weren’t human. Jesus’ humanity in a kinship is highly important in the Scriptures. This shows that He didn’t just come as a separate creation that wasn’t related to us, but that he was born in our form.

If you look carefully at Romans 1:3 you will see a necessary fact about his humanity:

Romans 1:3 (NASB)
3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh,

Jesus had to be a descendant of David. It wasn’t good enough for Him just to be human. He had to be of a specific lineage.

The reason I believe he withheld was because he was fully God. God cannot sin therefore Jesus could not have sinned, even though he was tempted to sin because of his humanity (this is where the incarnation gets messy).

The problem with this reasoning is that it not only makes the temptation invalid, but it makes Jesus really not to be like us. Remember that God cannot be tempted? It is only because He was also human, that Jesus could be tempted. There had to be something other than his being God that stopped Him from sinning otherwise how can we look to Him as one who suffered our temptations? His sinless nature (from being the seed of the woman) made Him able to not sin but it did not prevent Him from sinning. He would have been just like Adam was in the beginning. Adam didn’t have to sin, but Adam was able to sin if he chose to. Jesus did not have a sin nature, so Jesus did not have to sin. And Jesus as a man looked to God in keeping Him clean from committing sin. We can look to Jesus as our example and follow Him in trusting God to keep us clean.

Look at how Jesus handled temptation:

Hebrews 2:18 (NASB)
18 For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.
Hebrews 5:7–8 (NASB)
7 In the days of His flesh, He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death, and He was heard because of His piety.
8 Although He was a Son, He learned obedience from the things which He suffered.

Now some think that being “saved from death” means that Jesus was praying that He would not have to go to the cross, but this is not correct for the next part says that “He was heard because of His piety”. God didn’t save Jesus from dying on the cross, but God did save Him from the death that comes from sin. God saved Him from being tempted to the point of sinning. As a man He looked to God for His help and God heard Him. Jesus is our true High Priest who has suffered like we suffered yet without sin. He didn’t sin because He is God. He didn’t sin because He looked to God in His temptations. All of this shows the importance of Jesus’ being a sinless human that comes through His humanity and not in spite of it.

Your view makes it theoretically possible that Jesus could have sinned and I appreciate what you are saying because you are trying to understand how his humanity worked. But to imply that Jesus could have sinned is to deny that he was fully God, not able to sin.

This shows that you don’t understand the dual nature of Jesus. He was fully and completely human and fully and completely God. As God He was not able to sin, but He laid aside His right to act independently as God and He lived His life as a man. As a man he was able to sin just like the first perfect man was able to sin. If as a man He was not able to sin, then He wasn’t really human.

It also implies that God is able to sin theoretically and that he is changeable, both of which the bible denies.

Again you don’t seem to understand that dual nature of Jesus. Do you remember that the Bible says that God is not a man that he could lie? Well, God isn’t a man. But God can take on humanity so that the humanity itself is not an addition to His Deity but an addition to his personhood. So in the form of God, he cannot sin, but in the form of humanity He had to be able be tempted. What He did was what Adam should have been able to do if Adam had been faithful and had looked to God for help. There is no temptation that can force us to sin if we are living in the Spirit and putting our trust in God.

So I must protest again that emphasising this stuff about sin natures doesn’t solve any issues. I think it probably creates more.

I don’t know how far along in your pastoral studies you are Mark, but I hope that when you finish you will understand that the full humanity of Jesus and His being without sin from conception is highly important and is worth studying, worth debating and worthy of acceptance for it gives us reason for the hope that lies within us.

Not only that, but the bible is silent on this issue. It never says that Jesus was born of a virgin because only Mary did not pass on a corrupted nature. You are basically speculating on the issue.

What the Bible does show is that it was a necessity for Jesus to be born of a virgin. It is when one studies why Jesus could not have a human father, that the sin nature that comes through Adam becomes clear and understandable.

But I can see why you so it, because you need the incarnation to support your understanding of the banishment and sin, but I don’t think it works.

I came to the understand of the vital importance of the virgin birth of Jesus long before I dug deep into the Genesis account to understand that only Adam was kicked out. The understanding of he incarnation helped me to understand the fall, not the other way around. I started with the basics and worked out from there.

Mark,
You said:

Frankly I am astounded that you even have to defend the doctrine of original sin. Maybe that is a cultural thing in Canada/US.

No, I don’t think it is a cultural thing. What I think it is, is a reaction to any teaching that goes beyond original sin and touches areas that the Bible doesn’t teach. There mere mention of an inherited sin nature can cause many to think that I have accepted all the unBiblical additions that are common today. But I don’t believe in throwing out what is Biblical because it has been warped along the way. The fact is that we have all be touched by the fall and all are kept under sin so that all can be draw to the Savior.

It seems pretty clear to me in the bible the nature of our depravity. Not only that Pelagianism was wiped out early on as heretical teaching by the church. It appears however that it still runs rampid. I applaud you for defending the bible here.

Thank you, Mark, I do appreciate that! I don’t think many here know or understand that the rejection of the sin nature coming from Adam was part of Pelagianism and it was condemned as heretical. I tend to want to show from the Scriptures where the “old man” nature is an issue and must be dealt with instead of ignored and rejected as if it doesn’t exist. To merely say that this teaching has already been rejected as heretical isn’t always helpful until one can show why the correct teaching is true. Maybe I am wrong in thinking this way, but that’s how I think.

Mark, glad to have you back!

1. First off- good on you for correcting my wrong biblical quote, sorry about that. However I can’t see in Num 14 how the text is saying that the generations are evil.

The issue is whether the people have repented from what the good King destroyed – the idols, the burning of their children to false gods, etc. Do you see where the people repented so that they would not be punished? After all God is not punishing innocent people. Or do you think that this is what God is all about – punishing people who have not sinned or people who have repented of their sin?

Not only that, if your interpretation would be to work you would have to say that every single person in Israel was apostate. There is no room in your theology to understand how the righteous amongst the nation still suffered because of the majority.

God treats the righteous differently than he treats the wicked. In one instance in the Scriptures a young boy from a wicked leadership is said to have to die as he was the only one who was not wicked. God said that his body would be the only on that would be buried. Sometimes God causes the death of the innocent to protect them from the punishment that He is going to inflict on the rest.

Other times, God promises to protect those who are obedient to Him and He prospers them even in the land of their enemy. Even those who are not Israelites qualify for special blessing from God even in the midst of God’s wrath on the wicked:

Jeremiah 39:15–18 (NASB)
15 Now the word of the LORD had come to Jeremiah while he was confined in the court of the guardhouse, saying,
16 “Go and speak to Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, “Behold, I am about to bring My words on this city for disaster and not for prosperity; and they will take place before you on that day.
17 “But I will deliver you on that day,” declares the LORD, “and you will not be given into the hand of the men whom you dread.
18 “For I will certainly rescue you, and you will not fall by the sword; but you will have your own life as booty, because you have trusted in Me,” declares the LORD.’ ”

God is one who is faithful to those who trust in Him and He does not treat the faithful in the same manner as He treats the wicked.

To me the covenant was communial. The nation as a whole was to abide by it- especially the leaders (kings). When they were unfaithful, the nation suffered for that sin, even those who were righteous (though few).

God works within the levels of the entire community yet He also works in a one-on-one relationship within the community. This is especially important when the community becomes corrupt and unfaithful yet God is not unfaithful.

This same paradigm seems consistent with what the bible teaches about generational sin. Although person b is not responsible for person a’s sin, he/she may still suffer the consequences of it. Your thoughts?

The consequences will only be toward those who hate God. The minute a person turns, repents and loves God, God breaks the sinful cycle. God is not unfair to the righteous.

Just a reminder about the policy that I set up for my own blog. Here it is from my disclaimer:

As Christians we believe in unity through truth on the essentials of the Gospel, and the grace to allow for differences of personal conviction on non-essentials. Salvation in Jesus alone, by faith alone, and love for others are all essentials; issues such as gender (hierarchy), eternal security, predestination, Bible versions, etc. are non-essentials. It is loving to speak the truth and spread the Gospel to the lost, but not loving to divide over secondary matters, nor to harass those who disagree.

While I work hard to keep a respectful atmosphere on this blog I will not take a position of policing everything that everyone writes here. I request that posters respect my position that we stay focused on the issues and not attack individuals. Those who post here are responsible for their own comments. The blog owner and the blog administrators will not be responsible for comments by posters. I just ask everyone to remember that there is only one Lord Jesus Christ that we all serve and if we really love Jesus we will love and respect each other even if we disagree on the non-essentials.

Our belief is that the gifts that Jesus has given to women are for the common good of the body of Christ and women may use their gifts with the authority of 1 Peter 4:10, 11. We welcome dialog and trust that you will find a community here that loves the Lord Jesus and their brothers and sisters in Christ. We choose not to be identified with those who mock the body of Christ and attack fellow Christians in the name of a non-essential issue of faith. If you are willing to be respectful and you name the name of Christ, you are welcome to dialog with us whether you agree with our position or not.

For those who have asked me privately, I will clarify. I haven’t read the article that was written about my view. I wasn’t sent the article nor was I consulted about it as I consulted complementarians that I wrote about. In fact I asked permission of CBMW and gave what quotes I was going to use to their publisher. I also contacted John MacArthur’s organization and spoke to his right hand man personally and sent him a list of the quotes I was going to use. I treated them with respect as brothers in Christ.

My concern about mocking was in the comments made about me in the comment section. That is the only thing that I have seen. I was misrepresented and mocked and those who treat their “friends” this way should consider if this is how they would like to be treated. Perhaps asking questions of a person puts one into the “former friend” category and then it becomes okay?

It is difficult for me to think that in 2010 Christian men do not care what women think and will not allow them to influence the church even in a “silent” matter through their votes (considering that the vote would have been a private ballot). Perhaps there is a great fear of change in these men that if they let the women speak they may influence some of the men and then they wouldn’t be able to eject the principal.

Mara I think sometimes we do need to speak with our feet, but it takes courage to do that.

Greg, I also agree that women can have a real fear of speaking with their feet. Sometimes it may seem to them that abusive leadership that won’t let them speak or vote is better than the unknown.

But in the NT times believers, men and women alike, spoke up and often gave their lives for their testimony. Their boldness showed that the Holy Spirit not only indwelt them but they were willing to be empowered to take an unpopular stand.

It can be very intimidating and lonely when you take a stand without people standing with you. But if we consider that the Lord Jesus should be foremost in our lives and our friendships, comfort and even our reputation is not as important as Him, then maybe we will get back to the boldness that the NT men and women had in serving and sacrificing for the Lord.

to continue with gengwall’s comments:

On “desire” – we continue to use that word because it is in all the modern translations, but we all know that “desire” is somewhat inadequate. The correct term is more likely “turning”. Other synonyms may be “inclination”, or “attention”, or “interest”, or “focus”. The point is that whatever “desire” is, it can be positive or negative based on context.

I have not yet found a single Hebrew lexicon that lists “turning” as a viable option. It is in the text but just not for the for this word. But I do agree that the context will determine the meaning. We agree here.

On prepositions – This “desire” or “turning” is almost unanimously viewed as “to” or “toward” Adam, and justifiably so because that is the general meaning of the preposition being used. But, that preposition can also mean “against” as it does in Gen 4:8 when Cain rises “against” Abel. In cases where the two actors in the phrase are antagonists, against is a proper and often more appropriate translation. It could work in Gen 4:7 as well, and maybe should be used: “Its (sin’s) desire (or turning) is against you (Cain) and you must rule over it”. Certainly, the element of antagonists is satisfied and the verse does not lose any meaning or power when “against” is substituted for “for” or “toward”.

I agree that when there are antagonists that there is can be the meaning of against for the preposition.

Cheryl acknowledges this usage but insists that there is no antagonist in Gen 3:16 to justify it there. I am incredulous at the suggestion that Adam is not antagonistic to Eve. Not only has he brought humanity to this point through his rebellion, and caused significant and painful consequences to Eve, but the future, which the verse is explicitly addressing, will be one where he engages in an oppressive and abusive rule over her. In the future, Adam and Eve will absolutely be antagonists. So, Eve’s “turning” could absolutely be against Adam.

But Adam’s antagonism cannot be considered. I am not at all suggesting that Adam is not antagonistic toward Eve, but you cannot change the subject around. A woman who has a sin nature would certainly be antagonistic toward Adam but you cannot make Eve into a sinner by suggesting that she cannot help but sin. There must be something else to make this an absolute. Also notice something that is against your position. Eve’s desire is listed first and the coordinating conjunction is in the direction from longing to rule. If God wanted to tell us that Eve would respond to Adam’s rule with antagonism, then God would have placed Adam’s rule first and then Eve’s desire after that as a result of his rule. But with the order that it is written, her desire cannot be taken as a result of his rule, but something that is there first.

On sin nature – Cheryl’s trump card is that there is no second witness to Eve sinning outside the garden so whatever “desire” is, it can not be claimed with scriptural support to be sinful. I counter that Adam’s “rule” also has no second witness, and although Cheryl has suggested numerous scriptural solutions to that challenge, they are woefully unconvincing. I, on the other hand, contend that God is sufficient witness to Himself. God is not a false prophet, and so there needs be no second witness to a prophecy about Adam’s sinful rule that proceeds directly and audibly from God. The same is true for any sinful behavior on Eve’s part. We can quibble about rebellion and deception all we want, but if God is saying Eve sinned, we’d best believe it.

We both agree the Hebrew word for rule means a lording it, or mastery of another person and that is sinful. What we both agree that the word used for Eve is not necessarily a negative word. God cannot be made to say that Eve is sinful no matter how hard you try. The word order is wrong, it is a coordinating conjunction, not just a conjunction listing unrelated words in unrelated order. And God is not saying that Eve “sinned” a second time. If she was a rebellious sinner she would also have been kicked out of the garden.

I think that you need to work harder to get a second witness for God’s word with the inspired words, the inspired grammar and the exact word order (not the rearranging of cause and effect as you have made in the passage) cannot be used as a witness against Eve. I am open to hearing a valid witness to “longing” as a bad thing. But so far you haven’t presented anything that would hold up in court. And I am unwilling to attach sin onto the woman without a Biblical charge of sin that will hold up to the required two or three witnesses. I do not want to meet Eve in heaven and tell her that I charged her with sin because it made my thoughts on marriage fit. That may be a good reason to believe it, but it isn’t good enough in my opinion. Like I said, I could be wrong , but I would like to see the evidence that I am wrong.

So, my view of Gen 3:16 is that it is God’s prophecy about the destruction, due to sin’s influence in the world, of godly marriage as testified to in Gen 2:24. Both Adam and Eve, (and subsequent husbands AND wives) are party to this destruction – Adam through unloving “rule” and Eve through a disrespectful “turning”.

And what disrespectful “turning” against my husband are you charging me with? I would like to see the evidence you have against all women.

We can return to a Gen 2 model of marriage, but only if we recognize that both Husband and Wife have Gen 3 described flaws that need correction.>

Yes, please do tell us what the flaws are from Genesis 3 that God is charging against all women. I would be interested to hear it. I would also like to know if you have a second witness to this “flaw” or if Genesis 3:16 is the lone charge against all wives?

Well, this has certainly turned out to be an interesting discussion. Certainly passionate and thought-provoking and I think has pushed us into the passage deeper than even I thought to go. Good going!

gengwall,
You said:

God: Eve, there are some unfortunate consequences that are going to affect you personally because of the situation. You will have an increase in sorrow and in pregnancy and raising children will be generally not fun. This is all that jerk Adam’s fault, of course. Yet you will not succumb to what would be perfectly justified anger toward him. No indeed. Instead, you will continue to desire to connect deeply with him on the soul level in such a way that you are best friends; a level where you can share all your hopes and dreams with him. Yet, can you believe this, that dirty rotten no good so and so will not only not appreciate your efforts to be his soul mate, but he will take advantage of your goodness and purity and lack of ill will and instead dominate and oppress you all of your days. There is more, I’m sad to say. You, being female, will pass on your goodness to all your daughters. Oh sure, now and then one of them might go against her better nature and fall to her sin nature that she inherits from that misogynistic pig husband of yours, but by and large all women will naturally be kind hearted and model this pure desire you have for Adam. But since Adam is both evil and male, he will pass on only his abusive, ruling nature to men and they will subject their wives in the future just as Adam will subject you.

Now, that is quite dramatic, but it is in essence the argument that Cheryl puts forth as the correct interpretation of Gen 3:16.

Nope. Honestly I hear your own pain in this. It seems to me that you think that just because you are a male that egalitarians (and me?) look on you as a male, receiving only evil from Adam’s nature and we women are perfect and unaffected by sin. I don’t know where your reset button is, but if I could find it I would likely push it to clear out the bad thoughts. I am not against you and I don’t know anyone here who is against you. And I will say it once more….our father Adam brought sin into the world and all of us are influenced by a nature that causes us to rebel.

And the biggest reset button is our Lord Jesus. He is able to change us into His image. Now men don’t get more of the image of Jesus than women do or vice-versa. We all share the same human first father and we as Christians will all share in the same Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

see Gen 3:16 as more balanced than that. But I still must postpone my interpretation and first look at the rest of scriptural teaching (not biblical history) when it deals with
marriage.

Oh my goodness, I hope so. That was a terribly unfair rendering.

When God instructs us about marriage in scripture, He always maintains a balance between husband and wife. Genesis 2:24 is the best example of this. Although He created them distinctly male and female, the two are equal and create, in godly marriage, a one flesh union. 1 Cor 7 is also a stark example, with Paul addressing husband and wife with instructions to be explicitly equal in relation to each other in sexual matters. We see the balance in Song of Solomon, where neither lover is dominant and both of their desires are unconditionally met. And we see it in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3, where, although making gender distinctions, the instructions to each gender have equal weight and produce balanced results to the marriage. In all of these cases God’s teaching on marriage is gender balanced, with neither gender being better or worse, or getting more or less, than the other.

I don’t have any problem with this.

Why would God deviate from the pattern here? Why would God all of a sudden elevate one gender while denigrating the other?

Oh, I see the problem. You think that because God says something that He is proposing it. But that is not the case. God is saying what Eve will do and He is telling Eve what her husband will do.

Notice two things here. He isn’t telling her that any of this is what He wants. He is predicting their human wills.

Secondly notice that He doesn’t tell Adam what he will do. Why? Because Adam doesn’t need to be warned about something that he can’t control. So what is this all about? It is about two people who are one in flesh in their marriage union dealing with a bad situation out of the garden. What has this got to do with the good things that are set up for all marriages?

Moreover, why would God predict a pattern of behavior that is neither lived out in real life human experience or addressed in subsequent teaching?

Do you mean why would God predict Adam’s bad behavior to Eve? Because she has the option of whether to leave the garden or not. He isn’t forcing her out. It isn’t going to be a rose garden out there with the sin cursed earth and the one who brought sin into the world. Is God predicting that all men will rule women? Whether this is something that a lot of men do or not doesn’t mean that God is telling Eve that this is what her sons are going to do to her. God is specifically talking to one person (Eve) and telling her about her own husband.

It just doesn’t make any sense unless Gen 3:16 has nothing to do with marriage; unless it is exclusively about Adam and Eve. But nobody suggests that that is the case.

I think people have taken Genesis 3:16 far beyond the prediction that God made. Now if God had said to Eve that Adam and all her sons will rule her, then that would have been a double warning for her and a predictor about all men. But is God actually telling Eve that all men will rule her?

Gen 3:16 is the sin axis around which Gen 2:24 and Eph 5 rotate – the ideal of Gen 2:24 on one pole, the path to return to the ideal on the other pole of Eph 5. Of course, for this to be true, one would need to establish that Eve’s “desire” is sinful.

So it seems like you have a package deal that would fall to pieces if Eve was not sinful. I don’t know, my friend, but if I had to make a woman sinful without a second witness, I think I would drop my package deal on Genesis 3:16. For if for you to be right, you have to make her sinful, then your desire to be right is going to be a stumbling block to see anything other than what you want to see in the passage.

On conjunctions – Cheryl is correct that the conjunctions could be translated “yet”, but that is only one possibility. If the verse says what she says it says, then her conjunctions are correct. But you can’t decide what the conjunction must be and then determine the meaning of the conjoined phrases. You have to determine the meaning of the phrases and then the conjunctions fall in line. It is just as likely that phrases 2 and 3 are not subsequent and antithetical to each preceding phrase, but are instead simply items 2 and 3 in a list of consequences and not so intimately related to the preceding phrases. So “and” is just as valid an interpretation.

It isn’t just a conjunction, it is a coordinating conjunction.

..therefore the connection between the parts is established and it isn’t just a list of unrelated events.

I received an email from a friend who was interested in dialogging on the issue of sin but didn’t want to post on the blog so I am going to address their concerns/questions to me here for everyone to read but to keep them anonymous.

But for me, the whole idea of “original sin”/inherited “sin nature” opens a can of worms and it appears that it perhaps perpetuates the misogynist view of Genesis in the long run. It still puts “males” at the center – in turn giving some creedance to male’s having a type of ultimate responsibility for the mess of humanity.

It isn’t “males” that brought sin into the world but one person. That one person didn’t have a sole kingship that made them responsible. In fact I am sure that if it was Eve who had sinned in rebellion she would have been charged with bringing sin into the world. This is not a male/female issue but about one sinner.

The whole doctrine seems to have originated with Augustine’s interpretation of Paul’s (my friend put in the Greek, but unfortunately my blog doesn’t allow the Greek to be shown) as meaning “in whom all sinned” in Romans 5:12. Modern translations agree that its proper meaning is “because.” According to Augustine all sinned “in Adam”, which he understood as meaning that because Adam sinned every other human being, each of his descendants, is counted as a sinner.

This is one of the ways that some have understood original sin, but this is not Biblical. Adam’s sin did not become ours. The correct translation is “because”. Here is the difference. We didn’t sin “in Adam” as if we participated in his sin. We were “in Adam” when he sinned so that the consequences of his rebellion would be felt by those who had yet to be born. We experienced the results of the poison and our DNA was changed from perfect to disposed toward sin.

For me, there is a problem with the fundamental idea that we inherit sin at birth as part of our human nature and if Christ is not “fully human” and “fully God”, then to me, Christianity has a serious flaw.

I have a problem with that too and this is not what I believe. We don’t inherit “sin”. We are sinless when we are born. But we have a bent towards sin although we have not committed any sin. Do you see the difference? I too have read from those who believe that we inherit Adam’s sin and this cannot be because God has clearly said that He does not punish the son for the father’s sin.

Here is where the doctrine of a “sin nature” creates a problem for me: if Jesus was born with a different nature than the rest of mankind, then whatever else he accomplished, he could not recapitulate our lives on our behalf.

My friend, let me say it this way. If Jesus was born with the same nature as the rest of mankind, then He couldn’t be the Savior. He had a different nature (sinless) but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t human. It was the exact same nature as we were created to have. It was the same as the first Adam and thus Jesus is rightly called the “last Adam”. Jesus and Adam are compared in Scripture and both became human without sin. Adam changed that by rebelling, but Jesus fulfilled all righteousness without a single sin. It was the same beginning but different ending. We couldn’t say that a man who had Adam’s nature at the beginning (sinless) he couldn’t pay for our sins. I say that he had to have the original nature that God made mankind to be or we would have been left in our sins.

He could, perhaps, purchase us. But having purchased us, he could not also heal us.

Well, Adam the perfect man couldn’t heal us. In fact the Scripture says that no man can ransom another for the price is too great. But because Jesus was man AND God, as God He could heal us and as the God-man he could pay for our sins in full.

His walk was then fundamentally different than Adam’s.

His walk was not fundamentally different than Adam’s. In fact his walk was the exact same as Adam’s in the beginning. His walk was vastly different from Adam’s after Adam sinned.

If we believe that Jesus was fully human, and yet lived in this world without sinning, we have a logical and a theological problem. How do we explain that Jesus never received either the guilt of sin from Adam, or a sinful nature which caused Him to sin? “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are–yet was without sin.”

This is where Jesus was different than Adam’s end. Jesus never gave in to temptation and His temptations were “in every way just as we are” while Adam was tempted to rebel in only one thing. So Jesus was far greater than Adam and He understands all of our weaknesses.

How can we be guilty for a “corrupt nature” with which we were born, and over which we had no control, and for which we are not personally responsible?

We will be condemned for turning away God’s antidote to our sin. While we may not be able to do much about living perfectly without sin, we can accept God’s revealed word and have faith in Him. It is for rejecting God that people go to hell in the first place. And secondly we go to hell for sinning in things that we do have control of. While we cannot always control our thoughts we can control our actions. Those who commit adultery and then say that they couldn’t help themselves as they are not guilty because they had no control are simply in error.

God has placed us all under sin so that we would all be in a position to have faith in Him instead of earning our way to God. Some may say that He should not have done it this way, but it is fair that all of need God and need a Savior and if we look to Him in faith, we will receive salvation and that is fair.

It seems inconsistent with all just ideas of God that after Adam and Eve, He forms all the rest of us with a nature which with absolute uniformity leads us to sin and destruction. The claim is made, “The present state of human nature cannot therefore be its normal and original condition. We are a fallen race.” But the more I study this, that just seems to be a means to transfer the blame from God to Adam, or through the sophistry of the “Federal Headship” of Adam, to all of us as really present “in” Adam when he originally sinned, and then to find all of us “responsible” and “guilty” for the sin “we” committed “in Adam.”

I do not agree with the “Federal headship” of Adam and that we are guilty for Adam’s sin. One pastor told me that his wife had a couple of miscarriages and that he didn’t know if those unborn babies were in hell. When I balked at this statement and told him that unborn babies could not commit sin, he stated that they were guilty of sin in Adam and that if they went to hell they deserved it. Honestly I was appalled. This is not Biblical teaching. Unborn babies do not have “Adam’s sin”. They are innocent of sin and God condemns no man or baby for Adam’s sin.

I think that the error that has been taught in the name of original sin has tainted the doctrine that we have an “old man” nature that we inherited from the man who brought sin into the world. We don’t inherit sin. We inherit a sin nature. If we don’t understand that so many Bible verses don’t make sense for the “flesh” is talked about as sinful and needs to be put to death.

If there are any others who would like their questions/comments placed here but don’t want to go on the record, I don’t mind at all. Just send your questions to me and I will make sure that they are placed here anonymously.

This is such a huge topic for many people. It is important for us to think these things through Biblically as well as to reject the bad arguments of the past.

pinklight,
You asked:

Why do we die?

We die because we are under the sentence of Adam because of sin and we do not have access to the fruit of the tree of life. What I really praise God for is that some day we will be back to paradise with God and back to the tree of life and we WILL life forever – those of us who have faith in God.

Lin,
You asked:

We have to ask why the Septuagint used ‘turning’. This is the translation quoted quite a bit in the NT. Then we have to ask why Turning was used almost exclusively (except for the Latin Vulgate around 400 AD which translated it as “power”) until around 1300 when Pagnino translated it as ‘lust’ and lust it stayed up to the AV until it was then translated as ‘desire’ in modern translations.

The concept of turning is in the passage of Genesis 3:16 although the Septuagint translates it as “turning back” See below:

This is also the way it translates Genesis 4:7 but does this make sense? Sin is “turning back” to you?

gengwall,
You said:

I will add that I don’t think God’s image contains some sin component. That is not what I mean to imply. What I am getting at is that God gave Adam and Eve free will to make choices. That free will was equal and the choices available also equal. That includes the choice to rebel. It seems to me that the difference choices between Adam and Eve at the fall had only to do with knowledge, not nature. Adam chose to rebel because he had the knowledge to avoid being deceived. Eve was just as capable of a choice to rebel, but her lack of knowledge led to her being deceived. Adam may have had his nature transformed at the fall to now contain a propensity to make rebelious choices – that will be argued in the other post – but nothing about Eve’s experience changed her capability of making rebellious choices. It only changed her susceptibility to deceit.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Are you saying that after Adam sinned at the fall with the two things that God charged him with and after God kicked him out of the garden so that he could not rebel and take of the tree of life, that Adam could have not sinned at all for the rest of his life? That he was actually no different than before he sinned? If this is so, can you explain the change in Lucifer was being perfect to the place where he has no truth in him at all and he is the father of lies? Was Lucifer (now satan) no different than Adam in that he could have chosen to not sin not to ever sin again even after he fell?

Lin,
You said:
This is because ‘desire’ is not a good translation and takes us into all kinds of error and problems on both sides of egal/comp. God warned Eve that she would turn to her husband and he, in return, would rule over her. Even though history of the translation of teshuqa is there for anyone to see, people still defend ‘desire’ as appropriate. I think it causes a lot of interpretation problems.

“Longing” is a very good translation and I have not found a single lexicon that translates the word as “turning”. I do agree that turning is in the text but it comes from the word “toward” as seen in the above example that I copied.

I also note that BEFORE God talked to them andright after they ate, Eve was hiding from God with Adam and covering her nakedness, too. Bad choice? Sin? Reaction to sin? The absolute horrible effects of bringing sin into the world?

The reaction was shame. This is always what follows when one sins. But shame is not the same thing as covering one’s sin like what Adam did when he blamed his deceived wife.

Eve was caught up in it even though deceived. Her subsequent turning to Adam was not a good choice. I think some here have a comp view of turning to the husband as a good thing. OUr human relationships are nothing compared to our relationship with God. If we are both seeking God, we will have a great relationship. God does not come between humans who are both seeking Him.

I think that we have a view of Eve as if she was a sinner like us. While we can sin by looking to our husbands as if they were mediators between us and God, the Scripture nowhere attributes Eve’s longing for Adam and turning to him as a sin. If I have missed something, I stand to be corrected. But where is the correction from the Scripture? It won’t be from what we “feel” the text says but what does the Scripture say in the text that makes Eve’s future actions as a sin?

Adam rebelled against God and dealt with Him treacherously. Yet Eve chose to turn to Adam. She enabled the sin of patriarchy with a bad choice. God warned her.

While I agree that God warned her what life would be like with her sinful husband, how can we say that God warned her not to turn to Adam? The Scripture doesn’t say Eve don’t do that. Where does the text say that God warned Eve not to do this action?

God is Soveriegn and could populate the Earth any way He wanted to. Not too long after, He flooded the earth and wiped out all mankind except a few. And Noah ended up drunk and naked!

God is Sovereign, but He always used humans to populate the earth, not recreations of the first man from the dirt. And yes Noah ended up drunk and naked. He too had an “old man” nature.

The effects of the fall were horrible. I shudder to see them watered down here in order to prop up Eve as totally innocent for her choices.

The effects of the fall were horrible. However God has always blamed only Adam. No one here is watering down the acts of Adam. Is charging Eve with sin when God didn’t charge her with additional sin something that is watering down the effects of the fall? I don’t see how.

truthseeker,
You said:

Regarding Eve’s desire being ‘to her husband’ which is how the interlinear translates it, I would really like to hear a scholarly, knowledgeable person’s take on what it means to have a ‘desire TO your husband’. That is an awkward way of saying ‘desire for a husband’. I think there is a reason why it is ‘to’ and not ‘for’.

It is actually “toward” and this is where the “turning” comes from.

The focus of her longing is toward her husband. If one sees Eve as left in the garden and Adam as the one kicked out, her one-flesh union with him would manifest in a longing toward him. It is the turning toward her husband that comes from this word alone. Longing for and cleaving for one’s husband is not a sin and as I said on another post, God gave them the mandate to fill the earth. That mandate was not rescinded because of the fall. It was not a sin for Eve to be with her husband and God never accused her of sinning nor did He force a divorce on her. She was free to be with her husband to continue God’s mandate.

truthseeker,
You said:

If, as is stated above in #390, Eve sinned by eating the fruit and breaking God’s command (1 sin) and we might say, by offering it to Adam and presenting a stumbling,tempting opportunity to him (second sin?-after all, Jesus had harsh words to say about those who cause others to stumble-i.e. little children), then Eve is at least half way or all the way to having sinned the same number of times as Adam, at this point, and this would certainly qualify her for a sin nature, too. I mean, one or two times-what’s the big difference when we are ‘developing a sin nature’?

The Bible doesn’t say that Eve “tempted” Adam. In fact this is an old way of blaming the woman for his sin that many saw in the account. But it isn’t true. Eve offered the fruit to Adam and she wasn’t accused of being a temptress. God didn’t say to Eve, because you offered the fruit to Adam, cursed is…. Offering a piece of fruit was not a sin to her since she was fully deceived and he was not.

As for developing a sin nature due to a long enough list of episodes of sin, I only read of two-God says to Adam, because you have hearkened unto the voice of your wife (1) and have eaten of the tree (2). How can two instances be enough to develop an entire nature? If I had a child who rebelled twice, I would in no way conclude they had a rebellious nature-not at the point of having rebelled only twice! There are some children who ‘only rebel’ a few times, and when they receive punishment, etc. for it, never do such things again.

There were two instances of what God said were sin and another stated by God in the book of Job that I quoted above (hiding his sin) another by God when He told Eve what Adam would do to her outside the garden and the very strong possibility of Adam’s future sin which would have been devastating to God. I think that all of these is a good sign of a new nature.

In fact, as I read out the rest of the account about Adam, he is only mentioned a couple more times and those are only minimal factual accounts of him knowing his wife and fathering Cain and Abel. There is no further explicit documentation of Adam continuing to rebel any more than there is of Eve.

We have already have enough documentation for a “two or three witnesses” pattern to prove Adam’s continued sin. There is no witness of Eve’s sin after she was deceived. But on top of this is the fact that Adam (and Adam alone) is said to have brought sin into the world. What sin did he bring into the world?

(Even if we ‘add a few’ by saying Adam sinned by blaming God and Eve, that is still only a total of 4 episodes. If repeated occurrences is what it takes to make something as deeply ingrained as a ‘nature’, I would hardly think 4 would be an adequate number of times to develop such a thing.

If Adam still had his perfect nature he would not have had to sin at all after the first episode if he didn’t have a different nature. After all in all the time that he existed before the fall he didn’t sin even once. Now all of a sudden within a short period of time he sins 4 times. Why? And now Adam is said to have brought sin into the world.

The next thing that is really important is to note that Lucifer only sinned in rebellion once before his nature was changed. It is the kind of sin that is most important. Adam’s sin was the sin of rebellion.

In fact, the more I look at the whole passage, I simply see Eve blaming the serpent for beguiling her, and Adam blaming Eve for giving him the fruit, and God saying, ‘because you did thus and such, this is what is going to happen.’ Period.

Eve blamed the one who was to blame. That wasn’t a sin. And God knew that the serpent was to blame so he cursed him for doing what he did to Eve. But Adam blamed the one who was not to blame. That is the difference. God did not accept Adam’s excuse and God did not blame the woman for Adam’s sin.

No mention of sin natures. No further mention of Adam or Eve sinning. The consequences are monumental, of course. But the account is simple. I don’t want to hang more pots and pans onto the wagon than are already there.

The new testament makes it clear that we all have an “old man” nature. Where did this come from? How could we have this “old man” nature and Adam be free from this nature? I would be interested to know where you think this nature comes from and if it is “natural” and God created us to sin so easily why would He say that what He created was good? Does God consider the “old man” nature as good?

truthseeker,
On the other post about Eve you asked:

I see absolutely nothing stated in the text about Adam or anyone else developing/now having a sin nature. It is completely and totally absent. Would God have not stated something clearly that was this monumental?

Adam hid his sin which was a continuation of the sin pattern:

Job 31:33 (NASB)
33 “Have I covered my transgressions like Adam,
By hiding my iniquity in my bosom,

Adam is also predicted to sin against his wife by ruling over her. In Genesis 3:22 God stops only one future sin from taking place and that would be the sin of Adam eating from what is now forbidden. This verse is very monumental as it is the first time that God forbids something that was given freely before and it is forbidden because of the need to stop a sin from taking place.

If, as egals, we claim to be so careful about what is and isn’t clearly evident and stated in the text regarding women and their ‘roles’, then why do we just jump right in there on this one and pronounce that there is, indeed, such a thing as a sin nature showing up here? It is like the emperor’s new clothes, if you ask me.

How do you explain only one man hiding his sin? How do you explain only one man looked on as one who could again sin with knowledge? I see Adam’s continued sin in three ways. Do you see an innocence or do you see something that has changed in the man? God didn’t have to set a guard on the tree knowledge of good and evil in the beginning. Why does God have to set a guard to the garden now? What has changed?

Mark,
You asked:

Where does the incarnation come into play in your theology. You seem to state very strongly that Eve did not have a rebellious sin nature because this was neccesary for Jesus to also not have a sin nature.( through the virgin birth with no corrupted father) But where does the fact come in that Jesus is God, and that in God there is no sin. To me he is sinless (or without a sin nature) precisely because he is fully God and he is fully human because he is born of woman (since only women can bear children)

Thanks for the questions! Jesus had two natures one as God and one as man. His nature as God came from His being God from eternity past. His nature as man came through Mary.

If Jesus as a human could be sinless because He was God then He wouldn’t be just like us. And if being God is what made Him sinless then why couldn’t He have a human father? Why must He have been born from a virgin without the possibility of a human father? This is where the incarnation comes into play with Him being fully God and fully man but without sin.

The reason why Adam and Eve were without sin in the beginning is that they were created that way by God. But since God requires a perfect sacrifice for us as the Kinsman Redeemer, the man Jesus had to take on our flesh – the flesh that came from Adam. If you make Jesus the man sinless because He is God, then that takes away His connection with us. Then He is different than us in his humanity because He has been somehow cleansed of the sin nature which we are not cleansed from. But if as I state that the sin nature comes into our world only through the man, then the virgin birth removes any barrier that would stop Jesus from being like us. He is our Kinsman Redeemer back through the lineage of Eve who came from Adam before he sinned. It gives Jesus a “natural” human existence as a sinless man just like the way that Adam was created sinfree.

The challenge to those who believe that the virgin birth was not necessary to have Jesus be a sinless human is to answer why God demanded the sign of a virgin and why He rejected a human father for Jesus. I believe that the Messiah coming through the seed of the woman which has not been tainted with the sin of rebellion assures that the Messiah will not have a sin nature. For if we believe that the sin nature comes through Adam, why should it be hard to believe that there is no rebellion that comes through the seed of the woman?

I can’t help but wonder if you are pushing your Gen 1-3 theology into the incarnation and corrupting it.

It was God who said that the seed of the woman would defeat the serpent. There is no corruption in this seed and God gives us no understanding that God would have to do something special to cleanse the seed. The woman had no rebellion to produce rebellion in her seed. If I am wrong, then all it would take is a Scripture or two that states that sin comes into the world through two or that Eve was in rebellion or anything along that line.

I am going to leave the question about the incarnation until I have more time to answer. I have to go now and get other things done, but I will answer the next question because it is a very important and valuable questions that applies to this subject.

Mark,
You asked:

Numbers 13:18 “The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Here quite plainly the children are punished to the third and forth generation. Can you clarify your position?

I think you mean Numbers 14:18. In that verse God says that he “will by no means clear the guilty” what comes after that is to be interpreted by the disclaimed. These are not innocent children who are punished for their fathers sins, but succeeding generations who have been taught to hate God and despise His word. We can see this clearly by the parallel passage in Exodus.

Exodus 20:5–6 (NASB)
5 “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,
6 but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Do you see that God punishes those who hate Him, but to those who love Him and keep His commandments He does not punish but shows them lovingkindness?

God is a fair and loving God who does not punish the children for their parent’s sins, but he does punish those who hate Him even if that hatred has been taught and passed on from preceding generations. But when a people turn from this hatred and honor God He will not punish them, but love them and show them kindness.

Also you said “since Christ is able to remove not just the sin of one man, but the transgressions of the many (Romans 5:16). The passage is an extremely important apologetic passage for the universality of Christ’s sacrifice”

Again maybe this is just terminology, but are you promoting a doctrine of ‘universalism’, namely that all people are saved and none perish in hell?

No, this is not the heresy of universalism. All those who hate God and reject His word will go to hell.

In the Scriptures there is always a two part application of the removal of sins. There is the sacrifice which is perfect and complete and there is the application of the blood. For example at the passover the death of the lamb was enough to universally cover all the people within the house but the death of the lamb alone while it was a perfect sacrifice had to be applied by faith. So if the Israelites killed the lamb and ate it as was required by God, even though the sacrifice had been done on their behalf and even though it was a perfect sacrifice, God required the blood to be applied by faith. It was not a work but a response to God’s work. In every sacrifice for sin there is always two parts because the blood always had to be applied. This is where universalism fails. They believe that the death of the perfect sacrifice will be enough to apply the benefit that had been purchased, on their behalf. But the purchased benefit will never be put onto their account without faith. God kept all under sin universally so that only by faith would anyone enter the kingdom. Universalists believe that the fact that Christ died for all means that all are saved, but they fail to see that the application of the sacrifice by faith is required for all and it cannot be disregarded because God in His wisdom set it up this way. We either go in God’s way or we don’t go in at all.

Mark,
You said:

I appreciate your attempt to defend the doctrine of original sin. I agree wholeheartedly here with you.

I take this as a kind word from you and it feels really good to have someone speaking out in agreement. Thank you, Mark for taking the time to let me know that you are agree with me.

You said “God never prophesied that Eve might rebel and eat from the tree of life after the fall because Eve still had the ability to not sin.”

I wonder how you hadle texts such as these with your theology…

Eph 2 “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. “
1 John 3:4 “sin is lawlessness”

In regard to the Ephesians 2 verse, this is talking about the children of Adam as “by nature” children of wrath. This is exactly what I have been talking about – the nature of the “old man”. But this cannot be used for Eve since she did not inherit Adam’s nature.

Regarding 1 John 3:4, sin is lawlessness but God Himself has defined two ways to come into this “lawlessness”. There is unintentional sin that can come through deception and there is defiant sin which is done with full knowledge of the truth of sin. The Bible lists Eve in the category as one who fell into sin through deception. She is never even once listed as one who was in rebellion while Adam is placed in that category.

As I read the Scriptures I see that so often God places opposites together to give a message of God’s way and man’s way. For example there is Sarah’s child and Hagar’s child. There is Jacob and Essau. Then there is Adam and Eve. One brought a curse on the earth and the other saw the deception that they had fallen into and accepted God’s promise to punish the one who had deceived her.

I’m not convinced that the bible ever gives the indication that any single person has ever had the capacity to ‘not sin’ after the fall, even Eve. What texts support the idea that Eve was able to not sin after her original sin. Please cite your texts

Actually I am not claiming that Eve did not have the capacity to ‘not sin’ after the fall. In fact she had the capacity to sin before the fall just as Adam did. What I am claiming is that she had the capacity to not sin before the fall and after the fall since she did not sin in rebellion. I am also claiming that while Adam had the capacity not to sin before the fall, he became a sinner with a sin nature after the fall and he became a slave to sin. Do you see the difference between what I am saying and what you thought I said?

Along that line I have said that for Eve to have a rebellious sin nature after the fall would require a witness of Scripture to this sin nature. I am not claiming that she could not sin, but I am claiming that for Eve to sin she would either have to be deceived into sin or she would have to sin in rebellion. There is no indication that she sinned in rebellion after the fall. And as far as being deceived again this seems unlikely. First of all she now had her eyes opened to the deceiver. Secondly the deceiver was condemned by his original deception of Eve. How was he going to deceive her again? I also see no evidence of this. I believe that a person created perfect without a sin nature can live a sinless life. Jesus did. Since Eve did not inherit Adam’s nature, why could she not continue to live a life without rebellion? Without a charge of rebellion against her, I have to consider her innocent until proven guilty. I would ask, what do you believe to be evidence of her rebellion?

Now this may simply be terminology issues. I agree that no-one is responsible for another’s sin, Adams or otherwise. But are you saying that children do not suffer the punishment for the sins of their parents (on earth i mean, not eternally). If so, how do you understand these texts…
2 Kings 23: 25-27 “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.26 Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27 And the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

First off my discussion had been that the Father’s sin’s would not be placed on the account of the son so that we are not punished for our Father’s sin. Having said that I will deal with the passages you brought up.

In the passage of 2 Kings 23, God is showing that even though there is a good king in the land, and this good king forcefully destroys all the idols, the mediums, the spirtists and all of the other abdominations including the places where the Jews were burning their children to Baal, if there is no turning from evil from the people, even a good king cannot save Judah. There is a price to pay for the evil that they have done and the forced cleansing of the evil from a good king will not stop God’s anger against the people.

Here Judah is punished for the apostasy of an earlier king Manasseh. The effects of the sin of the king result in the destruction of Jerusalem, regardless of Josiah’s reforms.

It is the people who did the evil. Even though they had been encouraged by an evil king who set up much of the apostacy, it was the people who followed the evil with their whole heart. God wasn’t punishing repentant people. And God wasn’t punishing innocent people for the sins of their fathers. Let’s see that:

2 Kings 22:3 (NASB)
3 Now in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, the king sent Shaphan, the son of Azaliah the son of Meshullam the scribe, to the house of the LORD saying,

It was the 18th year of the reign of King Josiah when the scroll of the law was found. When King Josiah found out what was written in this law he was humble before the Lord and tore his clothes and wept before the Lord at the evil that had been exposed. It was then that he went out and destroyed all the idols and the places of evil that had been set up and where the people were doing what was evil in the eyes of the Lord. For this God promised that he would not see the punishment that God would bring to the people:

2 Kings 22:15–20 (NASB)
15 She said to them, “Thus says the LORD God of Israel, ‘Tell the man who sent you to me,
16 thus says the LORD, “Behold, I bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read.
17 “Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods that they might provoke Me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath burns against this place, and it shall not be quenched.” ’
18 “But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the LORD thus shall you say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD God of Israel, “Regarding the words which you have heard,
19 because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the LORD when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you,” declares the LORD.
20 “Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place.” ’ ” So they brought back word to the king.

So this good king would not live to see the punishment but the people who did the wrong doing would be punished. This was in the 18th year of Josiah and he reigned for 31 years so it was only 13 years later that Josiah died. Then evil reigned again and the people did not obey God. While the original evil was to be punished from the evil that a former king instituted, it was the people who followed and did the evil and they did not repent nor were their hearts softened to God as Josiah’s heart was during his reign of good. We do not find “innocent” and “repentant” people being punished for the sins of their fathers.

I will continue answering in the next comment.

I just wanted to remind people that this blog is open for questions and for challenges from those who agree with me and those who disagree with me. I believe that as Christians we can dialog with grace even when we don’t always agree.

I am going to be really open right now regarding something that I don’t tolerate well and something that hurts me deeply. Quite a while ago I was on an egalitarians blog where there was a discussion on original sin and I commented and asked questions regarding a view that is opposite to mine. My questions were not answered and when I asked if my questions were going to be addressed the egalitarian host got mad and the comments were shut down. Now she has created a post on the same subject and has no problems making fun of my view on original sin and allowing others to do the same.

The question I would like to ask, is this the best way to handle disagreements on doctrinal issues? Since I am very open to being challenged and have yet to shut down the comments on my blog, why not come here and discuss it? I will no longer go to that blog to comment because the attitude that shuts down the opposition’s questions by shutting down the comments does not sit well with me. I have a far different philosophy. If I have the right position then I can accept a challenge and I can answer back without mocking the other person. A challenge does not weaken my position, it merely strengthens it because it causes me to work on finding ways that will answer the questions in the way that someone who is not in my head can also understand why I believe as I do.

If I am wrong I will never shut down the comments but I will be open to see where I am wrong and I will turn away from my error. I have this attitude because I understand that none of us is perfect and we all can have blind spots that can cause us to believe something that is not true. It is a win-win situation when someone can dialog/debate/passionately discuss these matters with me and work to convince me that I am wrong. I intend to do the same with them in as gentle a way as I can, and in the end even if we do not agree, we at least can have a clear understanding of why we believe as they do and why we cannot accept the opposing view.

But if our purpose is to put people down for their views and make fun of them personally this comes across as a position of weakness instead of a position of truth because the truth seeks to educate and encourage. Mocking and belittling a person comes across as a superior attitude. While this may draw people who like this attitude, I highly doubt that the attitude would be tolerated if they themselves were the subject of the ridicule. They would be greatly offended, I am sure. I was not offended so much as I was deeply hurt. I am human after all and I have feelings.

So if anyone wonders why I allow debate here and why I allow people to challenge me. It is because I believe it is a win-win situation. Truth is worthy of being challenged and it will stand. What isn’t truth should be challenged and we can all learn from it. And what is corrected and challenged with a Christ-like spirit will be heard.

It is my desire to give out my own correction to others in this same spirit. For I know that my Lord Jesus watches all that I do and what I do with a wrong spirit hurts Him. When I act in a loving, respectful way even to those who do not treat me this way, I am sharing the nature of the Lord who desires all of us to be conformed to His image.

Okay, I believe this needed to be said because the issue of challenges to my belief in original sin came up. I will no longer comment about this matter of what is written about me on this other blog. If anyone wishes to make a comment I will allow it, but I am moving on. I don’t want to dwell on things that hurt me, discourage me and pull me down. There is too much positive that can encourage others for me to focus on these negative things any longer. I will certainly accept the one challenging me to come here and pose questions and I will answer.

Okay, I’ll get to the questions posed to me shortly.

pinklight:

Romans
7:14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
Can this be said about Jesus? Or was he different from us because of the woman’s seed that wasn’t tainted?

The term “of flesh” is one of the Biblical terms for the “old man” nature. No, Jesus was never “of flesh” or “sold into bondage to sin” because he was “the seed of the woman” born without any kind of sin.

Why must we die if it weren’t for us inheriting it from Adam? Why do we inherit death from Adam when he was the one who sinned? There must be a reason.

It is for this reason:

Galatians 3:22 (NASB)
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.

In the wisdom of God, He decided that all would be “shut up” under sin so that we all would be in the position of needing a Savior. He was not going to play favorites so that none would be created perfect and thus never sin and not need a Savior. By the fall happenting exactly the way it happened, we all were “in” Adam when he sinned so that all were “shut up” under sin and all need a Savior. This was done so that God could give life in Christ to any who would believe. Eternal life isn’t given by being created perfect and working to stay that way. God’s plan is that He would bring people into heaven only by faith so universal sin had to happen so that God’s choice would be set up as the plan of salvation.

pinklight,

So if Eve had rebelled (assuming she did and her seed was tainted then) where then did Jesus get his perfect nature from since Mary did not have a perfect nature?

Jesus had to inherit his perfect human nature from Eve since she was the only person on the earth who had no rebellion in their nature. If Eve had sinned in rebellion she would not be qualified to be the mother of the “seed”. God couldn’t just create another perfect woman from the dirt because the Messiah had to be the “kinsman Redeemer” which is someone who is related to us by blood but who is also able to purchase us. If Jesus had any spot or wrinkle he could not be the perfect sinless lamb who was given for the sins of the world.

Or did she have a perfect nature and we do too?

No, Mary did not have a perfect nature and neither do we. Mary did not have to be sinless to carry the Messiah since all that was needed was the “seed of the woman”. Eve’s seed passed along through the generations was never tainted with sin. As long as there was no human father there was no possibility that the human Jesus would be tainted with a sin nature. He was born perfect just like the first Adam and even though He was tempted, He was able to choose not to sin.

If Jesus didn’t get it from Mary’s seed alone, then how can he be linked back to us (Adam and Eve) and be our Redeemer?

If the seed of the man was used, the human Jesus would be tainted, but the Kinsman Redeemer needed to be a descendant of Adam. The only way that He could be a descendant of Adam but without an “old man” nature, would be to come through the seed of the woman alone.

If we have a perfect nature and Mary did too, then why do we need Jesus?

Good question! Why would we need Jesus? And if any of us are perfect then we could work our way to God because we are in perfection already. But we are in need of a Savior because we are sinful and we have been that way since we were conceived with the seed of the man.

Why did a perfect man (his flesh) have to die if we are born perfect and we can stop ourselves from sinning and rebelling? Couldn’t any one of us then choose to never sin and therefore be perfect like Jesus was?

These are questions that need to be answered by those who believe that they do not have a sin nature. I sure wish I had the answers because I would like to see how they would get the answers from God’s word.

pinklight,
Excellent questions once again! You asked:

Where did Jesus get his humanity (perfect humanity/perfect nature) from?

Jesus is the promised “seed of the woman” so Jesus got his perfect humanity from Eve.

Are we born perfect or not born perfect?

None of us is born perfect. We are subject to death even during the time before we are born because of the fall of Adam. And we have a nature that has a difficult time not sinning although we can not sin for a time and we can hold back on the extent of our sin, but our own thought life should tell us how much of a sin nature that we truly have.

Were Adam and Eve made perfect or not?

Adam and Eve were made perfect in the beginning. They had the ability to choose to sin but they also had the

full ability to remain sin-free. There was no necessity that they sinned because they had choice.

Lin,

It could be the premise is wrong and leads us to a wrong conclusion. But then, they do not work well when you continue to ‘change’ your views on certain points.

I haven’t changed my views. It seems like you have misunderstood. My focus is on Adam’s sin nature. His sin nature has come out in several ways – hiding his sin, rule over his wife and the need to protect the tree of life from the rebellion of Adam. Patriarchy is an outflowing of the sin nature in a desire to rule over women as well as other men. Patriarchy has been established since Adam’s day until our day in many cultures, in many lands and over a long period of time. Men and women have followed Adam’s way of sin during those years to in many different ways but the one way that God warns the woman about happens to be the most consistent sin with men. When Christianity comes into a culture, a change starts that gives respect, honor and freedom for women to serve God.

So ruling is not the sin nature, but the sin nature can consist of an ungodly rule along with other sins.

Do you consider my comments here mocking you? If you think that, you are very wrong. I simply disagree with you.

I do not consider people who come to my blog and engage me even if they disagree with me in a passionate way as mocking me. I invite dialog and as I said before I consider your questions as respectful. But I have had a dialog on the other blog some time back and I asked some hard questions – things that others ask here all the time and the post got shut down and no answers were given to my questions. I have no problems in inviting Paula or any others who disagree to disagree to my face. But doing things behind someone’s back is usually considered disrespectful at the very least.

That is my stand and I think it is more than tolerant for debate and dialog because it is my aim for my own blog to remain respectful and fair. I have no problem with you on my blog. You are upfront with your disagreements and you have a right to express your point of view with all the passion that you have.

Here is my concern. I do not want anyone unwittingly to be a “mouthpiece” for someone else who is unwilling to dialog here. I very rarely feel disrespected on my own blog and I tolerate a lot especially when the strong comps have shown up here from time to time. But I can feel highly disrespected when people take their disagreements with me behind my back without bothering to dialog with me first and especially when dialog has been shut down by the same person over the same subject in the past.

Okay, ‘Nuff said.

Lin,
I didn’t mean to offend you at all. I think we both know that Paula has taken an opportunity to mock me on her blog. If you think this is fair and respectful then so be it. I think that she should come here and hash out this issue herself. Do you agree with me? If you don’t then I’m sorry. Those who want to argue passionately should be willing to defend their view instead of resorting to taking shots behind someone’s back. I prefer not to handle disagreements like that. Let’s be men and women of God and handle this fairly and with respect. That is all I am asking for.