Kay,
You said to pinklight:

For me, the jury is still out on the meaning of ‘teshuqua’ – I’m not sold on ‘desire’ as the only correct possibility. And even if it was a “good” “desire,” it can, as someone else stated, not be returned in kind. Living by one’s emotions, whether good or bad, is not the same as making godly choices. Now if the word in question was ‘love’, I might better understand your point.

The interpretation of “turning” doesn’t actually go along with the Hebrew word for “desire”. It comes from the Hebrew word that is translated as “for”. I think an even better translation is from the Brown-Drive-Briggs lexicon which says it means “longing”. I get the picture of her soul longing for her soul mate.

Jessica,
Welcome to my blog! I always appreciate when complementarians are willing to dialog.

For me, it isn’t so much that Eve usurped Adam’s authority, but she denied the goodness of God. The serpent taunted her with the fruit and insinuated that God was holding out on her in some way. Eve’s sin was that she believed Satan’s word rather than believing God’s and then she acted on it.

I would like to point out something that you said. You said “For me, it (is)…(Eve) denied the goodness of God.” Actually the sin was eating the fruit. The cause of the sin was believing the lie about God which was the deception. The Bible doesn’t say that Eve denied the goodness of God. There is a subtle difference. The serpent is the one who lied about God but Eve did not tell the serpent that God is not good. Nor did she tell this to Adam or to God. She just believed the lie.

I am a firm believer that Adam shares full responsibility for “the curse.”

Adam does share full responsibility for the curses, but his sharing is with the serpent not with Eve. God makes it clear in His word that it was one man who brought sin into the world. Eve does not share in any way with the curse brought on the earth. That is what God’s word says and even if we are tempted to rationalize a blame for Eve, God’s word doesn’t let us.

The Scriptures are very clear that he was right there with Eve. At any point he could have stood up and said, “No Eve, this isn’t what’s best for us.

I completely agree with you here. Adam indeed was there with Eve and it not only could have spoken up, he was obligated to do so as the one who was not deceived by the lie.

Together they sinned and denied that God is good and trustworthy. For me, I think that is the greatest sin and issue out of this passage.

Jessica, I think you have missed something. Remember that Adam was not deceived. He was not deceived into believing that God is not good or not trustworthy. The greatest sin is for Adam to have eaten the fruit when he knew everything that had been said was a lie. He ate in full rebellion knowing that God is good and knowing that only God is the creator and we cannot be any more like Him than what we were created as in His image. He knew that there was no godship waiting for him. He sinned in full rebellion and this is the greatest sin that God calls treachery in Hosea 6:7.

Even though the Bible doesn’t explicitly say this, it’s almost as if Adam was having doubts of God’s goodness and also desired to eat from the tree. I mean, if he had no desire would he have done it in the first place?

We can’t let ourselves be deceived about Adam. Adam did not have any doubts of God’s goodness because we know for sure that Adam was not deceived. Paul is a witness to this in 1 Timothy 2.

I don’t know, as a complementarian, how this passage shows that Eve usurped Adam’s authority. Because she gave him the fruit? And I’ve never heard the argument (from the comp side) that Eve should not have talked to the serpent…which, I agree, would lead to the practical application of a woman having to defer to her husband on (practically) any conversation. I don’t think that’s correct.

Wonderful! I am glad that the post got you thinking through this one complementarian error.

If only men can speak for/defend God then a woman would not be able to give her testimony, evangelize, or engage in apologetics–all of which I believe are biblical and commanded for both men and women.

More kudos for you! There are so many complementarian teachers out there who have so silenced women that God’s female “sons” are held back from fulfilling the calling of the gospel. I find this so incredibly sad.

While this post is under the heading of objections to women in ministry, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on headship (which was alluded to here). As well as, what do you think a woman can do in ministry and why (biblically)?

As far as headship goes, type in head or headship in the search on my blog and a bunch of posts should come up on this subject.

As far as what women can do in ministry, I believe very strongly that whatever God has gifted women to do they have the permission and authority to do. 1 Peter 4:10, 11 is the Biblical mandate for the ability for women to use their gifts in the power and strength that God gives them. The gifts that God gives are for the common good and not to be withheld from part of the body of Christ. This is from 1 Cor. 12:7. These two passages are what I rely on for the freedom for women to ministry in any way that God gifts and empowers them for God’s Holy Spirit is not to be held back just because He chooses to use a female vessel.

To be honest, even though we may not agree on certain issues of gender roles I appreciate honest and respectful discussion that helps me to understand more thoroughly what I believe, why, and its Scriptural base. But even as we disagree, the most important thing is “Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2).

Amen! What a wonderful attitude that you have! I welcome any complementarian to my blog to dialog and the questions that I have been asked by comps has sparked a lot of good discussion and has been especially helpful for me to understand how I need to frame my answers with those who do not think along the same lines as I do. Col. 4:6 is a favorite verse of mine and I think that there is much that we can all learn as we practice love for one another even if we disagree on these secondary issues of faith. Although this verse is in the context of “outsiders”, I believe that it is a pattern of how we should talk with one another over all issues of disagreement so that we do not force another person into our own beliefs but gently dialog with respect.

Colossians 4:6 (NASB) Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person.

Gazza,
You said:

Thanks for your patience I have finally joined all the dots and can see what you are saying.

No problem and I am very glad to hear that you are understanding the point that I have brought out regarding the inspired words of Scripture. That makes me feel like it is worth the effort to try to explain things. Your questions really help me to understand where the gaps still exist that I haven’t filled in for you yet. Much appreciated.

It leaves me with a further question – if knowledge of good and evil is entirely part of being made in the image of God then would Eve not be culpable for allowing herself to be deceived.

Again this is an excellent question!

First of all I should explain that there there is a basic knowledge given to both that is part of the essence of being in God’s image. This is the thing that we call the conscience. It informs us of good and evil and it is something that God has told that we must not overlook. Those who go against their conscience in such a way that they “sear” their conscience have made this gift of God to us of no effect.

So both Adam and Eve had the very basics of the knowledge of good and evil. But Eve had her knowledge by-passed by the deception of the serpent. She did not go against her conscience and act in rebellion. She had her conscience bypassed by trickery. I believe that this happened because she lacked a piece of information that Adam had in his experience with God before she was created.

Paul explains in 1 Timothy 1 that some sin is committed not through rebellion or outright hostility to God but because of ignorance and this ignorance brings unbelief.

If she already knew about evil and that it was wrong then surely choosing to believe the lies of the serpent is a willful act of rebellion?

Scripture never describe Eve’s actions as willful rebellion. Let’s deal with the verse you quoted to show the difference between us and Eve.

Eph 5:6 “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.”

We have two safety factors set up for us – our conscience and God’s Word. Eve had her conscience and she had her husband’s experience of God’s nature as Creator before she was created if he had shared his knowledge with her. He was the safety zone for her so that she would not have been deceived, but he failed her. He did not correct the false representation of God and he knew the truth. In Genesis 2 we see Adam created outside the garden and the garden created for the benefit of Adam after his creation. Seeing the work of the Creator through both the special garden and the animals and then finally his own wife solidified the uniqueness of the Creator for Adam. He was a being that was created from the dirt and there was nothing in that field when he was created. He literally saw the creation of the garden of Eden and some of the animals as God formed them from the ground and brought them to Adam to name. What was barrenness at his creation was brought to life by the Creator. He saw first hand the different between the God who creates all things and himself who had no creative power as a “god”. He was not deceived.

My DVD set brings out all of this to help people understand the amazing things that one man alone was privileged to see. It takes us back to the inspired words of the Scripture that should not be missed to see the full picture of what God really did for the first man. There is no wonder why Adam was not deceived.

If what you are saying is true then Eve like the Ephesians knew what was right from wrong before she was deceived by the “empty words” of the Serpent and was “disobedient”, leaving her under Gods wrath. Or am I missing something else?

You are missing something. Look at the verse just before the one you quoted. Look at Ephesians 5:5 along with 5:6

Ephesians 5:5–6 (NASB)
5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

The Ephesians knew with certainty because they had the words of God. They had the gospel brought to them and it was taught to them from the Old Testament record along with signs and wonders and the testimony of the apostles (a good three witnesses).

But think about Eve. She had God’s word in what she could eat but she had never experienced Him as Creator since everything was created by the time she arrived on the scene. She was ripe for deception because she was missing both the experience that Adam had and sound doctrine about God’s nature in Creation. This is one reason why Paul gives the solution of learning sound doctrine as an antidote to deception.

So what did Eve know about God’s creative actions as the one and only Creator? It appears that she is missing all of the knowledge that Adam had in his experience with God before she came along. All it would have taken is for Adam to share his experience with the Creator who is separate and not like His creation and the lies would have unraveled. But she didn’t have one who was willing to be the watchman on the wall to save her from the enemy. She so was taken captive not as a result of ignoring the knowledge of the Creator. She was taken captive by the things that she didn’t know. If the Ephesians set aside their knowledge of the truth to accept the empty, useless words of liars, they will experience God’s wrath.

Do you see the difference?

I would really recommend the entire teaching on my DVD set. The DVD setting with the teaching done with graphics and visual examples has really helped a lot of people to understand the complete picture. I am going to be recreating it in a slightly different way through my book.

Alison, thanks for your encouraging comments!

I am quite shocked that you would be challenged the way you were in an egalitarian church. It almost sounds to me like the church is heading the opposite direction or else that there are some people within the church who do not accept women in ministry and who have an agenda to change the direction of the church. That can happen and it is very sad when women have had freedom and then the door closes again in their faces.

truthseeker,
Okay, I’m back and ready to tackle some of the questions/issues brought up.

I am going to answer your questions on a new post, because I think that the issue of the sin nature deserves to answer the challenges in a place where all can see. Not everyone will endure reading through over 400 comments. Also if I create a post to address this issue, then if/when it comes up again I can just link to the post instead of taking time to answer the questions again because surely I won’t likely do it the easy way by find my answers in the mass of comments. So your comments, questions, challenges, etc will be the topic of the next post, okay?

Margaret,
Welcome to my blog! I know that this post is a very old one, but I am glad that you took the time to comment.

The issue of three nights of Jesus’ death was an important one to me since I could understand parts of three days as any part can be spoken of as a whole, but I couldn’t make three nights work. But if there were not three nights then this part of the Bible was either it was truth and I just didn’t have all the facts so that my understanding was partial and faulty or else the bible was in error and if it was in error in one area, then how could I a mere human determine which was true and which wasn’t? The big leap for me was believing that every word of the passage in question was truth and admitting to God that I believed Him over my own understanding. Then God took me outside my box to help me understand and that was the basis of my strong belief that God’s Word is trustworthy and the answer is there is I work hard to uncover God’s unfailing truth.

My research brought me to the conclusion that Jesus died on Thursday between the two evenings (when the lamb was to be slain) and that He rose from the dead very early Sunday before the light of day dawned. The issues of the Jewish counting of the start of the days, a special Sabbath that caused a double Sabbath, the Jewish counting of two evenings when the lamb must be slain and the fact that Jesus did not stay in the grave once the dawn of the day of Sunday were all a part of my education. The Jewish counting of their day is the day starts at sundown.

Anyway thanks again for popping in and I hope that my work can be a help to you along your journey.

Oh boy, guys, lots to answer and so little time!

Today is an out-and-about day so I will pop in as I can. I will try hard to get to each question from each person. I am trying to mark the questions for myself so that I don’t forget to answer (and forgetfulness is one of those things that happens quite naturally at my age!)

I am going to put Mark and Gazza at the top of my list when they ask questions since I feel that die-hard comps (Mark) or one who might be a semi-comp but is open enough to ask sincere questions (Gazza) gets special treatment here. Not that the rest of you aren’t special. You all are special. But there are so few comps around who challenge or question on my blog that I want to treat them with priority.

Now as far as the numbering, I was removing a few comments last night that were technical questions. I am not sure I should have done that as it seems to have confused a few of you 😉 because it changed the end numbering. Sorry about that guys and gals.

I would also like to ask for patience from all as I work through the questions. I am feeling a bit overwhelmed and it will take me time to respond. I am working on my new book and to do a good job it is going to take me long hours away from my blog. I am going to try to post at least one new blog post a week and keep up with the comments as best I can, but I can’t promise to be super woman. I was blessed to have my deadline extended to August 30th but there is a whole lot of work yet to do and with re-writes and sending the manuscript out to those who would like to write a review, it is going to be touch and go to get it all finished in time.

I haven’t finished reading all the comments that came in yesterday and I will do that later today plus get to the questions later. Thanks for asking such good questions and keeping that wonderful community (yet passionate!) spirit that I love on this blog. If I could, I would reach out and give each one a hug and tell you how much you mean to me.

A special public thanks to pinklight for all her hard work picking up the slack when I can’t answer. I think it has been a couple of years since she has been hanging around and my! what a growth this gal has had in knowledge and boldness. I remember the times when she used to challenge me too (and likely still will) whenever she thought I had it wrong. Thanks pinklight for being gracious and helpful and for speaking out when I was just too busy to be here!

Okay, I am gone now for awhile. Will be back as soon as I can.

I have almost no time today as it is a very full day. I will respond to at least one of the comments. Lin’s comment will take a fuller response so I will leave it for when I have time on my computer.

gengwall you said:

You acknowledge that Gen 3:16 says something about wives but that something is not found in the portion of the verse related to Eve. It must, therefore, be in the portion related to Adam. So are you saying that wives, as the daughters of Adam, cursed with his sin nature, will also “rule”? I am curious exactly what it is that you see Gen 3:16 saying about wives and where in the verse you see it said.

What I was saying is that Eve is not like all women in that she was without sin. But I do believe that we have something that is within all women that is the same although it can be greatly distorted in us because of sin (but was not distorted in Eve).

I believe that within us has been placed a desire to connect deeply with a man on the soul level and that the term soul mate would be the proper way to describe it. In fact I am certain that the term soul mate was coined by a woman. A woman longs to connect emotionally with a man in such a way that they are best friends and she can share all her hopes and dreams with him. It is in this way that she feels loved. It is common for a woman to give the man sex in order to get back what she really longs for.

So while Eve longed for Adam and her soul was tied to him in a deep way, we too have that longing but with the appearance of sin in each of our lives that godly longing can be distorted and women can be manipulative in order to get their needs met.

gengwall, you didn’t answer these questions:

How was Eve the same as all women and how she was different? Did she operate with a sin nature? Has that sin nature (Eve’s) been transferred to all other women?

I would appreciate you taking the time to let me know what your view is and where you are coming from. Also I would be very interested to see how you view the Scriptures backing up your view.

I am off for the rest of the day. Bible study day today plus meeting with our architect in preparation for renovations. I am finally going to get an office with a view. Yeah!

Another good note is that when God says that “but now lest he reach out his hand…” the term “lest” is God’s way to prevent a predictable event.

conj.: — 1. w. impf. (106 ×), prevention of a theoretically possible event: lest, so that … not; so that he does not stretch out Gn 3:22; — 2. w. impf., prevention of an otherwise predictable event:
A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. (293).

This is the whole issue of the sin nature. It is predictable because of the new nature that lies within Adam.

Gazza,

I tried to get the whole phrase marker on the screen, but it didn’t work for me. Above I cut it up some so you can see the phrases. Do you see that Adam “was” like God. The perfect tense reflects what he is in nature – he was made in the image of God. The forbidden tree did not make him any more like God. In fact the “and now” means “but now” “henceforth” or “from now on”. That is a break in what Adam was created to be. It shows that there is something different now that has caused God to remove the tree of life from him. It isn’t that God was jealous that Adam had become like Him. No, not at all. Adam was made like God in the beginning. It is the evil that now lived in Adam who was and is remaining in the image of God that became the problem.

Does this help to show that the problem was the “but now…” not the fact that Adam “was” in the image of God as “like” God in the beginning?

Gaza,

How can God refer to an intimate knowledge of sin (experience) in the name of the tree in chapter 2, then in chapter 3 when considering Adam after eating that same fruit say Adam has “become like us knowing good from evil” (knowledge about sin) ? Though the phrases don’t use exactly the same word they refer to the effect of the same tree.

The language that God uses is the perfect tense when He says that Adam had become like God. This is what Adam was and still is as he is in the image of God. This is not what Adam just became. It is a little easier to see from the Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis if I can get it to fit here. I don’t want to make it too small or you can’t read it. Let’s see how it comes out:

Gazza,
You said:

In verse 22 God also describes man as having “become like us knowing good from evil”. As God cannot sin against Himself how do you reconcile that Adam has become like God if it is referring to him experiencing sin?

No, the knowledge that God had and that He created Adam with is the knowledge of good and evil. God has the knowledge of everything there is including evil. Nothing surprises Him and there is no sin that is hidden to Him. But this kind of knowledge, the kind that is acquainted with and knows about sin is not the same thing as the “knowledge” of the forbidden tree. That knowledge is an intimate connection with evil. That kind of knowledge is the experience of sin. Although God knows all about sin, He cannot experience sin because He is holy. But Adam experienced sin and he is the one who brought sin into the world. So the intimate knowledge of sin from the name of the tree in chapter 2 is different from the knowledge about sin from chapter 3 which has no partaking in evil.

I hope this helps!

truthseeker,
Wow, I can’t believe the good questions that are continuing to come! This appears to be an area that we can all learn from and the questions pinpoint the areas where we are unclear.

Cheryl, you state that one of the reasons or ‘witnesses’ you see that establishes that Adam had a sin nature is #2.” He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life.” This would seem to indicate that he had a sin nature before he even participated in the whole incident of taking from the tree of life. In other words, why would God have considered Adam a threat if he didn’t possess-prior to this incident (the Fall)-a sin nature?

Adam was not a threat to the tree of life before he sinned because God gave him full permission to eat from this tree. Remember in chapter 1 God said that they were permitted to eat from every tree in the garden that had seed bearing fruit. Then in chapter 2 we find out that there is only one tree forbidden so we can be assured that the tree of life had lifegiving seed and it was not forbidden to either Adam or Eve before the fall. It was only after the fall that the tree of life was forbidden to them since they could not die as God said they would if they ate from its fruit.

You don’t state that you believe God also saw Eve as a threat. Therefore, you believe Eve had no sin nature leading up to the Fall. This would imply that God created Adam, alone, with a sin nature (otherwise, where and when did Adam come to possess this sin nature?).

Neither Adam or Eve had a sin nature before the fall. God did not create Adam with a sin nature. How did Adam come to possess this sin nature? He came to possess this sin nature through rebellion by reaching out for and eating from the forbidden tree when he had full knowledge that it could not give him wisdom to become like God. Adam was not deceived. Adam ate in full rebellion and this rebellion caused a change in him.

Yet elsewhere, in other discussions, you stated that the sin nature came as a result of the Fall, not prior to it. That would contradict the basis for your second ‘witness’ here:
Quote from #227 Cheryl: “I believe that there are three reasons why we can understand that Adam has a sin nature:
1. He hid his sin.
2. He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life
3. He was prophesied to be the one who would practice sin through ruling his wife.
I consider all of these a valid witness to Adam’s sin nature.” End of Cheryl’s qoute.

I have never stated that the sin nature came before the fall. It came at the fall and was not a part of Adam’s creation. When Adam hid his sin he already had this sin nature. It wasn’t until the fall that Adam became a threat to the tree of life. And God gave a prophesy about Adam’s future as a sinful man – he would take a rule over his wife that God did not give him.

Does this make better sense?

1. Creation – no sin nature
2. Reaching forth to take and eat the fruit in full rebellion – sin nature now becomes a part of his own human nature.

283 Gengwall says: “Cheryl’s response is basically two fold:1. That Adam’s sin nature, exemplified by the apparent inevitability of him eating from the Tree of Life, is a second witness that Adam sinned outside the garden…” End of quote.

My comment: This statement or summary also attributes to Adam a sin nature PRIOR to eating from the Tree of Life. (It does not imply Gengwall’s agreement of this summary necessarily.)

I think that gengwall would be in agreement with regarding Adam not created with a sin nature and this sin nature came as a result of his willful disobedience.

I see both a view that Adam somehow had his sin nature before the Fall, where in earlier blog discussions on this site that wasn’t the case, and also simply a problem with the sin nature theory itself.

I am not sure how you got confused on this one, but hopefully I have cleared this matter up for you to understand.

There is nothing to say that Adam needed a sin nature to do what he did. Otherwise, if that is the case, then Eve needed a sin nature to sin, also, which I imagine she did after the Fall, during the rest of her life.

No, Adam didn’t need a sin nature to sin. He was given free choice, however without a sin nature, it wasn’t inevitable that he would sin. But sinning in rebellion with full knowledge of the sin and the truth is a very serious issue. Sin is not something that we can fool with and Adam sinning with full knowledge opened the flood gate for a new nature that had a bent towards sin. But Eve did not sin in rebellion so she had no sin nature that would cause her to sin again. God doesn’t give any prophesy about her future sinning and we know that she didn’t have Adam’s sin nature. She could sin because she still had a free will but without deception to take her into sin and with her eyes wide open to the deception that had taken her, she had not reason to sin again. If she continued to sin there would be a problem for what do we do with her sin nature? Is a continued sin nature passed on from Eve to her descendants?

She likely sinned at least once. Speculation, yes, but nowhere in the bible does it say that Eve lived a sinless life.

The Bible is clear about Adam’s sin nature and his continuing to be a threat to continue to rebel, but God gives no such warning about Eve. To charge her with sin would not only be speculative but unwise since we all are entitled to be looked on as innocent until proven guilty. She is not like us, remember?

So, if she can sin without a sin nature, what is to say we need a sin nature to sin? Human nature is plenty capable it appears of making sinful choices.

No one needs a sin nature to sin however without a sin nature there is no compulsion to sin and the sin one does is extremely costly. Lucifer had no sin nature until he took on pride and the desire to rule God and everything else. The sin of one without a sin nature got him severed from God forever. Human nature is plenty capable of making sinful choices as we have the propensity to sin. We are not like Adam and Eve at the creation. We were not created in perfection and with life. We are now created with the propensity to sin at the drop of a hat and we are created with a life that is dying.

I see the following claims-direct or indirect-as being very problematic both here and in other arenas:
Troublesome claims or inferences:
1. Adam had a sin nature pre-Fall,

No such claim is made on this blog.

2. God made Adam with a sin nature?

This is also not claimed by me or anyone here.

3. Yet Eve sinned without having a sin nature? What was the purpose, then, (NOT the consequence) of making Eve able to sin without a sin nature but giving Adam a sin nature?

Eve was deceived into sinning. God chose to give us the free will to choose to obey Him and the freewill to choose to disobey him and be lost. God was not interested in making puppets who loved Him and served Him because they had no choice.

4. All subsequent humans are born with a sin nature (not Jesus, of course.)

This one is true. And Jesus is the seed of the woman who did not have a human father. Again a good reference to a post I wrote is here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/

Gazza,
Welcome back! I missed you!

You say that the knowledge of good and evil is part of being created in the image of God and was not a result of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In Gen 2 v17 God Himself refers to the forbidden tree as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. Does this name not indicate the nature of the fruit of the tree in the same way the name of the tree of life describes a tree which if eaten from Adam would live forever (Gen 3:22)?

There are so many excellent questions brought up by people visiting my blog and this question is another excellent one!

The forbidden tree as “the knowledge of good and evil”. The Hebrew word for knowledge here as a definite noun.

knowledge, i.e., information of a person, with a strong implication of relationship to that person
Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)

This knowledge is one that is used for intimate knowledge and is especially used for the deep knowing and relationship with God:

knowing me, the knowledge of me;…knowledge (of God).
Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (205).

So the nature of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was the “intimate knowledge”.

In contrast what God said in Genesis 3:22 that man was/is like God in “knowing” good and evil. This knowing is a verb

1. LN 28.1–28.16 (qal) know, i.e., possess information about (Ge 4:9); (nif) become known (Ex 2:14); (piel) show (Job 38:12); 2. LN 27.1–27.26 (qal) find out, i.e., acquire information by whatever means (Dt 13:4[EB 3]); (nif) be aware, discovered (Lev 4:14); (hof) be made aware (Lev 4:23, 28; Isa 12:5+); 3. LN 28.28–28.56 (nif) revealed,
   Swanson, J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament)

The knowledge that Adam had before was a knowledge of understanding not of intimate experience. Man was made with the ability to acquire and possession information as knowledge. Man did not get a conscience at the fall, but was made with this conscience at his creation. There is a vast difference between knowing about something (evil for example) and experiencing evil. While Adam had the knowledge of sin before he ate the fruit because he was not deceived, he did not experience that evil until he reached out (the act of intent to sin) and ate (the fulfillment of the act).

If the fruit did endow them with a new knowledge then the natural meaning of Gen 3:22 would be that it is this new knowledge which is described in the text (rather than a sin nature with is a concept external to the text) that resulted in Adam being kicked out of the garden.

There was no new information given to them about evil when they ate. But the very act of reaching out in rebellion and taking of the fruit did result in a sin nature for the man. This sin nature would be a constant and intimate part of Adam’s nature as he alone brought sin into the world, and God made sure that there was no opportunity for this rebellion to live forever in this same state.

This has been an area that has stumbled many people because they have not seen the difference in God’s words so that many have mistakenly thought that this was one time that God agreed with satan. But it is not true. The knowledge of good and evil and God has and which mankind was created with was not at all the same as was offered by the reaching forth and eating of the forbidden fruit.

Lin,
You said:

How can you believe that her turning is not a consequence of the fall?

If her “turning” was against God then this could only happen if she was tempted to sin and fell from the temptation since she did not have a sin nature. Where did the temptation come from? It couldn’t have come from inside her since she had no sin nature inside? Where did the temptation to “turn” against God come from? And if she just decided to give up on God, why did she hold onto His Promise of the Messiah through her? Why did her “turning” against God not destroy her faith in God?

Her turning toward Adam produced Cain, for one thing.

Her turning toward Adam also produced Seth. It also eventually produced Noah and Abraham and David and Mary. Is it really fair to attribute the sin nature of her offspring back to her? If so then why does God encourage women to have children? Does He do this to charge them with their children’s sin?

Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB)
20 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

If the father will not bear the sins of the son, then how will Eve be charged with the sins of Cain?

And how can Adam rule over her without her consent? The text says nothing about him dragging her out of the garden against her will.

It appears that Eve left the garden willingly to be with Adam, but it is so easy for a person to rule over another person without their consent if the person has the physical power or emotional power to do so. I don’t know if you have ever been ruled over by someone without your consent, but I have. I don’t think that this is a mystery.

You guys are starting to make Eve sound like the comp Eve, a ditzy woman, always easily deceived who acted like a doormat and had no choices and made loyalty to Adam more important than God.

I don’t recall saying anything about Eve being deceived outside garden nor have I read anyone here saying that she was ditzy or a doormat or had no choices. In fact I think I made it clear that she was not kicked out of the garden and that she had the choice to leave. As far as making loyalty to Adam more important to God, it isn’t I who claimed that. In fact I have said that it wasn’t a choice between Adam and God. She could have her husband and her God just like most women. Thank God that we don’t have to make this choice although I realize that some women must make a difficult choice like this.

All I ask is for Scriptural proof that Eve turned her back on God and that she chose Adam over her God. Where is this in the text at all? And is it possible to see Eve as different than the children of Adam?

Lin,
You said:
I never once said Eve sinned out of rebellion. She was deceived. We are talking about her actions after the warning from God when she followed Adam out of the Garden.

Okay so Eve was not a rebellious sinner and she was not one who had the sin nature of Adam. One must look at the text then and decide. Was God commanding Eve not to leave the garden? Was God giving the predictions of the evil that would happen if she did the evil first (as if leaving the garden was a sin)? In other words was God saying that He will bring this evil on her if she sins and leaves the garden? Or did God give her the choice?

Is there anything in the Scriptures where God may have given Eve an ultimatum i.e. choose you this day – Adam or me?

Lin,
You asked:

My point was why did God have to warn her about something she was supposedly already doing that was good?

Excellent question!

First of all we need to remember that when God spoke the words in Genesis 3:16 Adam had not yet been kicked out of the garden. So the application of this verse was in the future. It gave the foundation for why a woman with choices would choose what seemed like a bad choice for her own good. And Eve was not to think that just because she treated Adam in a respectful and loving way that she would receive the same treatment back. No matter what Eve did, she was going to get mistreatment back from Adam because he was living a life of the rebellious sinner.

Now the next question is whether God can warn her about negative things in her future yet still allow her (or perhaps want her) to go through with the bonding with her husband that will bring about the those negative things?

Here is a case in point. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem and in every city along the way, people were prophesying to Paul that bonds and afflictions were waiting for him.

Acts 20:22–24 (NASB)
22 “And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there,
23 except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.
24 “But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.

So was Paul wrong in continuing to go to Jerusalem to give his life as a testimony to the gospel? Were the warnings given to stop him from going or were they given to prepare him so that he was not unprepared for the hardships that would await him?

I believe that Paul was in the center of God’s will and he would die a martyr’s death that would start from his arrest in Jerusalem.

In a similar way Eve was warned about what would await her outside the garden in her marriage with Adam, but the warnings were not given to command her to stay in the garden. They were given to prepare her so that she was not blindsided by the hardships that she would face.

If Eve bonded to her husband and her desire to be with him was a natural desire of all women, then what Eve did can be like what all women should naturally have.

A neutral or good thing can be the same from the first woman to all women, but is it possible for the first woman’s sin to be passed on to all women? If her sin was rebellion, then she too had a sin nature. If her sin was not rebellion, then who deceived her?

If what she had was not rebellion and was not sin, is it possible that what is passed down to all women could become sin in us? Sure. We, after all, are in the box!

gengwall,
You said:

I should add that the conversation has evolved a little since then. I am now far more concerned that Cheryl apparently believes that Gen 3:16 has nothing to say about wives. We may have to work backward from there.

It isn’t that I think that Genesis 3:16 has nothing to say about wives. However I believe that it is inaccurate to take post-fall weaknesses of women and put these weakness back onto Eve.

Are we going to find the truth about Eve by looking in the box? Is Eve exactly like us?

The truth claim of many complementarians is that Eve is exactly like all of us and because of this they have put her into our box and come up with things like:
1. Eve sinned by adding to God’s word
2. Eve tried to seduce Adam
3. Eve deceived Adam
4. Eve’s desire was to control Adam and take him captive to her own will.

I do not think that we will understand Eve and God’s description of humanity’s first woman to judge her by placing her in our box.

So perhaps we can ask ourselves how Eve was the same as all women and how she was different. Did she operate with a sin nature? Has that sin nature been transferred to all other women? What does the Scripture say?

Looks like there are lots more for me to answer while I was working on answering older questions. I will have to leave it for the time being and get back to my normal work.

Carry on and keep thinking this one through. I’ll be back.

gengwall,

Cheryl – “Make sense?”

No.

LOL! You are a tough cookie, gengwall, but we love you all the same!

To carry on…

Whether one calls this case sinful or only a bad choice, it had terrible consequences that you cannot deny

I honestly do not see Eve as leaving the garden as a bad choice. In fact I am glad that she did because if she had not left, I would not be here. I praise God that I have been given the opportunity to exist and to live to serve and love God! The consequences for Eve leaving the garden has been extremely positive for me. How about you?

And the Song of Sol. reference is not at all about Christ, unless one wishes to highly allegorize the whole book, as many do. But the immediate and non-allegorical view does not see Christ even inferred, but only the ‘desire’ of a wife for her husband.

Seems to me that Bushnell saw the Song of Solomon as about Christ. But whether it does or doesn’t image Christ, the desire there is not a bad thing.

That particular context is certainly about sensual desire, while Cain/Sin’s is about hatred, and Eve’s is about not wanting to be separated from her husband who was being driven out of the garden.

Marriage is more than a sensual desire on the woman’s part and the woman is not an antagonist as sin is. There is no comparison. Eve not wanting to be separated from her one-flesh spouse is a normal and natural result of marriage. She was his soul mate.

All three are ‘desire’ or ‘turning’; that is Bushnell’s point. It is NOT that all must be positive or negative!

That isn’t the understanding that I got as she said they had the same sense. And if there is a same sense in each case then why is there no turning away from in the other cases? The fact is that the turning of Eve toward her husband is not required to be negative.

And the major point of Bushnell and all egals is that this is NOT about lust or usurping authority, and that God did not command it but only predict it.

I agree!! Yeah! It is not something that was sinful for Eve nor was it lustful (another act of sin) or usurping Adam’s authority or any other charge of sin. It was allowed for Eve for her to be with her husband and to complete her command to fill the earth. The only way that this would not be allowed would have been if God had forbade it and broken their marriage. I don’t think He did that.

No, she assumes nothing like God being restricted to the garden; that is preposterous. That Eve turned from close, face-to-face, RECONCILED communion with God cannot be denied, for to leave with Adam was to reject that she herself would bear the Messiah.

Who says that Eve had no reconciled communion with God outside the garden? And the fact that she believed her first child was one who was created with YHWH shows that she did not believe that she had rejected God’s promise that her seed would be the Messiah. She still believed God and acted on that belief.

I thought I made it clear that I do not believe God was restricted to the Garden, especially when we remember that God Himself gave the reason for Adam’s expulsion: to keep away from the Tree of Life. But who can deny that people after Adam and Eve had a more distant relationship to God than had been the case inside the garden?

I agree again! But God no physically walking with us on this earth has nothing to do us having a more distant relationship. Moses had that close face-to-face relationship with God even outside the garden. The Bible doesn’t talk about Eve’s relationship with God and how His walking with her in the garden was replaced outside the garden. However we can’t assume that Eve had turned her back on this relationship with God. If the Scripture said this I would believe it with all my heart. But the Scripture makes it clear that Eve received mercy from God and He had no condemnation for her except the original promise that if she ate of the fruit she would die.

These discussions are very helpful, I believe to many who read and weigh in on the inspired text. What is written there and what is not? We need to continue to test all things by God’s word and accept what it says. There is no doubt that many complementarians will read these comments. I hope that they can see that the heart of the egal is to know what the Scripture says and not to accept tradition. We want to know truth. Our purpose is no to accept a person’s word just because they have egal leanings and I don’t ask anyone to just accept my word. Read and study and show yourself approved by knowing for yourself. This is my challenge to complementarians who are reading this and getting a new view of who and what egalitarians are.

Lin,
You said:

Cheryl, Lets look at the facts:
-Eve DID follow Adam out of the Garden. That is a fact.
-Her first child was a murderer, that is also a fact.
-Only a few generations (long) generations later, the world had to be flooded because of terrible wickedness

Is the fact that Eve’s first child was a murderer her fault or was it the fault of her husband who passed his sin nature onto his son?

The continued state of affairs of mankind is stated in Scripture as our “old man” which came into the world through Adam. I really do not understand how you blame Eve for this.

Yet, what would have happened if Eve had not turned to Adam and stayed in the Garden? (After all, Adam was willfully wicked)

If Eve had not turned to Adam and had stayed in Eden, then the Messiah would have come through her and we would not exist. But was it a sin for her to leave and is it her blame that she kept her marriage vows and kept that one-flesh union even if he was a sinner? God never took back his command to fill the earth so why should she be to blame? If Eve was to blame then God was also be to blame for not killing Adam and creating a new husband for her to fulfill her part of filling the earth.

To deny that Eve shares blame in the outcome of her choices is to deny the facts in the Word.

The problem with this reasoning is that her choices were not sinful. It is like saying today that although we know for sure that our future children will have a sin nature, that we are sinful and to blame for producing these children. It just doesn’t follow through. Adam is the only one that the Bible blames for the condition of this world. Jesus is not to blame. Eve is not to blame.

But many are not; they know about us but hate us and call us names. They are in sin, oppressed or not, because idolatry is sin!

Yes! I couldn’t agree with you more! Women today are responsible for learning and understanding for themselves. They cannot give their mind over to their husbands and be blameless. The Bible is there so that they will not be deceived.

Turning requires both ‘toward’ and ‘away’, it is impossible to turn toward Adam without turning away from God. Eve surely regretted it later, but if you want to argue from silence, then you must allow it for others too.

This simply does not fit. God is not a “thing” that can be turned from without sin. God is omnipresent and turning toward your husband in leaving the garden cannot turn from a God who is everywhere. I am not arguing from silence since God Himself did not charge her with additional sin and the Scripture is clear that sin came into the world through one man alone. How do you explain a sinful Eve yet her sin has no effect on her offspring? How do you explain how sin came through only ONE man and not through one man and one woman?

That is a strawman answer, Cheryl! Bushnell never said that desire/turning was sinful in itself, but only derives its meaning (good or bad) from the context. You know that context gives the meaning!

This isn’t a strawman answer at all. You quoted her as saying that “the sense of the passage must be the same”. If the sense must be the same, then the sinfulness must be the same as that is the sense is it not?

Like I said, I respect Bushnell a lot and I understand what she was up against. However I do not agree with adding to the meaning of a word. What is the turning away from in the other passages if turning away from is always the sense? When sin wants to control Cain, what is sin turning away from?? Do you see how this doesn’t make sense in any other passage? That is because the addition of turning away is not in the meaning of the word. I agree that it could mean this if the context allowed for it and there is additional words that stated that. But there is no additional words that create a turning away from God. He is not mentioned in the passage at all or that she would be leaving Him. It is because that is not the context. God doesn’t dwell in the garden.

gengwall,

Cheryl – “The second witness would be his sin nature and the fact that men all around the world seem to have inherited the tendency to want to “rule” in the same way.”

It is this kind of reasoning that is really disturbing to me. You again are asserting that Adam’s “rule” is attested to by males everwhere – i.e. that Gen 3:16 is predictive of the entire male gender and its conduct not only in marriage but also in society as a whole – yet you insist that Eve’s “desire” applies to her and her alone.

That is right and the reason is because we sinful women also get our sin nature from Adam. Men take after Adam in a way that corresponds to their tendency to sin and women take after Adam in a way that corresponds to their own tendency to sin. None of us takes after Eve. Only the one seed of Eve is without sin and we cannot import sin to Eve when the Bible specifically says that it comes through Adam.

How can that be? How can the Adam side of Gen 3:16 be universally about males, especially in marriage, but the Eve side of Gen 3:16 be only about Eve and have nothing to do with any other females in marriage or anywhere else?

It isn’t that it has nothing at all to do with marriage, but all other marriages are two sinners molded into one. Eve’s marriage was not that way. It was one sinner molded onto one without a sin nature. That is unique and has never been replicated since.

Make sense?

gengwall,

I have no illusions that Eve usurped Adam’s authority, so I think this is still the proper place to discuss my particular issues.

Okay. I was just concerned with the length of the comments and that some people’s browsers may take too long to load them. If that’s not an issue, then we can carry on here.

Lin #254,

Cheryl, I believe we tend toward error when we do not translate Teshuqa properly. I think desire is a very bad translation that leads us into error.

I think it is more of a bad understanding of the word and because of this hierarchists have found another way to denigrate the woman by making her a temptress and a snare to the man. But I think that we need to be careful that we don’t head off in the opposite direction so much that we make another bad addition to the word. We cannot add a turning away from God just by this word. We would have to have additional text to convey that meaning. So while I can accept that the word can mean a turning toward, I leave the challenge where the word must mean a turning away from. I haven’t seen it and I challenge anyone to show me the evidence.

When God brought Eve to Adam they were to meld together and he was specifically to turn towards her just as all husbands are to leave and cleave. But his turning toward her in marriage was not a turning against God. It is never an either/or situation where she can have her husband or God. Or he can have his wife or God. God always meant for them to have each other and Him.

I do not think Eve is the heroine that you seem to think she is. I believe she was deceived and remorseful.

Actually I don’t think that I ever said that Eve is the heroine. In fact it is her seed that is the ultimate victor and that is by God’s mercy. I too believe that Eve was deceived and remorseful.

I also think that when one “turns” toward something they also turn AWAY from something else.

Nope, that is not a given. To turn away from God is something that we should not read into the text because to add such a thing would be to charge Eve with additional sin. This additional sin is never put onto her account by Jesus or any of the other NT apostles let alone any of the OT prophets even though Adam is talked about in his sin in the OT.

I still find it odd that God tells Eve AFTER the fall she will turn toward Adam and you find that a good thing.

When they were both in the garden, God didn’t need to say anything. It is only when Adam has been thrown out that the issue of them being together is under discussion. Whether it is a good thing or not deals directly with whether she has a sin nature or not. If she doesn’t then there is no reason to believe that it is a sinful thing unless God says so.

I think it was a horrible thing with dire consequences.

The dire consequences comes from the man and his sin nature and not from the woman. The hierarchical view is that the Eve is to blame. God doesn’t apparently agree with this as He gives no rebuke to Eve about any additional sin.

You have been teaching it is a good thing and the way to propagate the earth. This sounds Mormonish to me for some reason.

LOL!! It isn’t like Mormonism at all. The fact is that if Eve is to have more than one child, she needs to leave the garden and be with her husband. God did not initiate a divorce between the two of them and His will was originally for them to be together and populate the earth. I don’t see where He changed that at all and although she had permission to stay, her loyalty to Adam would have been a good reason to leave.

Mormonism is about people becoming gods and living on their own planet having spirit children who worship them as gods. Not even close to having Eve leave her wonderful garden home to be with her sinful but still her one-flesh husband.

This does not just blame Eve but again, I ask, how could Adam rule over her, even physically with God’s protection? Are you claiming that God withdrew any protection from her and she had no choice even after her choice to leave the Garden?

This deals with the issue of evil. God does not necessarily step in and remove people from doing evil and sometimes the innocent suffer. The question of course is why does God allow evil? God has given us all free will and some use that free will for evil. But God has promised that all things will work together for good to them that love God and are called for His purpose. Eve is still in God’s hands even though her husband will do evil things against her.

You say my interpretation reads into the text. I believe yours does too. I fear you are seriously watering down the absolute horrors of the fall.

The horrors of the fall come directly through Adam and the serpent, not through Eve. There is nothing that I am watering down regarding the one who brought sin into the world. The fact is that Eve did not bring sin into the world and any teaching that teaches this would be adding to God’s word.

Sin has serious consequences whether one is deceived or sins willfully. The “consequences” are dire.

Yes there are still consequences whether one has been deceived or sins willfully, but God deals with each case differently. Eve has nothing cursed on her behalf but she still suffers for falling into sin. We cannot and should not diminish that. However to say that she continues to sin with a sin nature isn’t part of the “serious consequences” of her deception.

The bottomline for me is that Eve turned to Adam and away from God. This is based on the historical interpretation of Teshuqa.

There is no historical interpretation that Teshuqa means turning away from God. If you take the meaning of turning toward that fits in really well with Eve leaving but to add to the meaning something that isn’t in the text, one would have to go beyond the Scripture.

I challenge anyone to show a historical interpretation that Teshuga must mean turning away from. I have never seen it and I do not believe it exists. Bushnell’s chart does not show such an interpretation.

Many women in the comp world could take a lesson from this when they view their husbands as their spiritual leader instead of Jesus Christ.

Our sin is from our father Adam. Many Christian women must be taught not to view their husbands as their spiritual leader. But this error does not come from Eve but from the hierarchists who have tried unsuccessfully to import it into the text.

Lin,

I will answer your questions on #255 first as my answer is shorter.

But Mary had a human sin nature because she was born of both father and mother, if we take that view.

Absolutely, yes. But even though she was a sinner, the Messiah could come through her because of Eve, without sin.

Mary was chosen…why? Because she found favor with God. We are never told it was because she did not carry an inherited sin gene. Where are we told this about women, anyway?

I refer back to this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/ that discusses the necessity of Eve coming from Adam before he sinned so that the Messiah can be of the line of Adam but without sin.

Also a good answer is a reference to this post http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2008/03/10/circumcision-the-woman-and-the-kinsman-redeemer/ where the “sign of sin” is discussed.

Thanks for asking!

gengwall,

Cheryl – if the “desire” or “turning” has no spiritual component, is it is all related to the physical, are you not then supporting the idea that it is sexual desire? What other physical desire did she have for husband other than a sexual desire?

I have a real longing to be with my husband. The sexual part is not the focus for when and if that leaves when we are really old, I will still desire him. This doesn’t seem to leave the woman even when she has a 90 year old guy.

As far as a spiritual connection – it just isn’t in the text. Eve isn’t turning to Adam as her Messiah or her Lord. I believe that attaching a charge of sin to a text that has no charge of sin is a big mistake.

gengwall,

Looks like we are still discussing on this post. Alrighty then, I’m game.

I’m really not sure where you are coming from. You and I have never had differing views on the particulars of Adam’s “rule”. My only investigation is if there is a second witness to it.

The second witness would be his sin nature and the fact that men all around the world seem to have inherited the tendency to want to “rule” in the same way. Christianity seems to help men a lot to set aside that sinful desire. Although hierarchists seem to hold on tight to what they believe is their right. There is no confession of sin in that area and turning away from it.

If you also believe that Adam’s rule over Eve was sinful it seems like we are still on the same page even though we may disagree on Eve.

I made a long response to Lin, but then somehow I got off the page and lost everything. Arghhhh!!! Oh well, will recreate as I have time.