Cheryl Schatz

Wayne P,
Excellent observations. Thanks!

My new post is up now at http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/03/21/eve-usurped-adam-authority/

Perhaps we can move the conversation over there as this one has already 252 comments! Thanks!

Lin,
Your quote says:

Before Cain could have been born (Genesis 4:1) either Adam must have repented and become again the child of God, or Eve must have turned from God and followed Adam out of Eden. The fact that Cain was a murderer certainly argues that Eve followed Adam.

I do not agree with this at all. It is once again blaming the woman for what others did. I think that it is unhelpful to state that the woman turned her back on God when she left with her husband as if she couldn’t have both her God and her husband. The text doesn’t say this and if we add to the Scriptures we can have serious problems with what we believe.

Then there is this quote:

123. Eve was, then, the first woman to forsake her (heavenly) kindred for her husband. She reversed God’s marriage law,—”Therefore shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife.” Had Eve remained steadfast with God, Adam might through the double influence of God and Eve, have returned to God.

Not only is this again putting the blame for Adam’s continued sinning onto Eve, but the text never says that Eve did not remain steadfast with God when her eyes were opened to the truth. I may respect Bushnell a lot for her work, but these statements have no basis in the text.

This is also not true:

124. God spoke warningly to Eve at this time, telling her that she was inclining to turn away from Himself to her husband, and telling her that if she did so her husband would rule over her.

God did not warn Eve that she should not leave the garden because it would be a turning away from Him. He warned her about what life would be like with her one-flesh husband. Was God actually telling her that she had to stay in the garden and keep away from her one-flesh union? Was he telling her that she was no longer to fill the earth? Or was He merely warning her of life outside the garden when she kept her one-flesh union with her husband? I believe that the latter is the truth and I see no other words in the text that would add an either/or warning from God. Where is this extra warning in the text if it truly is there?

In fact there is no variety in the three sentences, excepting in the proper nouns implied in the pronouns used. The sense of the three passages must be similar.

If what Eve did is sinful, (her desire or turning) then by implication all the three passages must have sin as a result. This would make the passage about Christ’s desire to be sinful too. It just doesn’t fit.

If this be a commandment of God, and man must rule woman, the more carnally-minded a man is the better he keeps that sort of “law!” But the Apostle Paul says: “The carnal mind . . . is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7). Thus we see that the context does not prove that this “shall be” of the sentence translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” is imperative. We can assert positively that this sentence is a simple future or present, warning woman of the consequences of her action.

This I can agree with, however just because she will desire her husband does not mean that the desire is automatically a sinful thing. It is not a warning by God not to desire him. It is warning her about what will befall her with her one-flesh union will be like with a sinful natured husband.

But Jesus Christ said, as much of women as of men: “NO ONE can serve two masters.”

This is true, but it is not recorded in the Scripture that Eve set herself out to serve Adam as her master.

In my opinion Bushnell fails in this part of her teaching because she assumes a sin on the woman’s part by her leaving God as if He is restricted to the garden. The text gives not even one word towards Eve turning her back on God as none of the Hebrew words says this. If we want to make Eve a habitual sinner, we are in danger of having no human parent that the Messiah could come through and have no inherited sin nature. There is reason why Jesus could not have a human father. If we make Eve out to be a rebellious sinner like Adam, then how could God justify restricting the male from being a human father?

Let’s think these things through carefully.

Lin,
You asked:

If she had stayed close to God how could Adam have ruled over her unless God commanded it?

He could rule over her by force. This is the sad thing about patriarchy. It is a self appointed rule and it is a rule by the force of one person’s will over another.

Did she have a choice to leave or not? I gather from your teaching she had a choice.

Yes, Eve had a choice. She could have stayed in the garden and died there. The Messiah still could come through her without the need for a human male.

Did she make a wise choice?

Without her choice to leave none of us would be here. I believe that not only did God predict that she would leave (He prophesied that she would have pain in giving birth to children – plural), but he planned for all of the consequences that happened after the fall. God is able to work all things together for good for them that love Him.

As far as being a wise choice, she was in a one-flesh union with her husband. Even though he was now a committed sinner with a sin nature, she was still in love with him and his mate for life. She could have had a better life being alone in the garden without him, but perhaps that would have been the selfish choice. She was willing to continue a loving relationship with him so that they could together fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

Lin, the questions that you are asking are excellent questions and should help to push us all back into the text.

I just cannot seperate the physical from the spiritual.

The physical is much easier to control and dominate than the spiritual. The reason is because our spirits can not be taken captive without our choice. We can pray to God and communicate with Him and no one can stop us because our spiritual intimacy with God is not something physical that can be controlled.

I do know that many men after Adam have forced a spiritual control on women by restricting the physical service that a woman gives. While they cannot force themselves as a mediator between her and her God, they can do a lot to hold her back. And some women have fallen for the teaching that all that God has for her must be passed on down through the man.

But the issue here is Eve not all sinful women. Eve walked with God in the garden and Adam could not control her intimacy with God. Her words about God giving her a son from Himself is there in the Scriptures without being held back by Adam. While God predicted the truth about Eve’s life with Adam and that he would rule over her, there is no indication that Adam took away her intimacy with God. The same cannot always be said of the human sons and daughters of Adam.

If the desire was good then why bring it up after the fall?

Another great question! The answer is in the text. She would experience great pain in giving birth yet God predicts the unexpected – that she would desire him in spite of the pain. While desire is to be taken for granted in he original creation account where both were without sin and both were in unity together, it is not to be taken for granted after Adam became a committed sinner. Here is where her desire is important to know and understand and where his rule over her is also unexpected.

It would have been part of the good of creation and natural. God would have simply said: “He will now try to rule over you”.

The problem is that Adam did not “try” to rule over her but it was prophesied that he would take dominion over her. If he ruled over her merely by her own consent, then any consequence would have been her own fault. But the text does not show her consent. The text shows a connection done with a “but” or “yet” result. He has no reason to rule over her. God did not give him this rule and Eve did not give her rule away to him. Adam continued his life of sin by taking something for himself that did not belong to him. More on that shortly in the next post.

But Eve had to do something for that to happen the way it did. She had to turn toward/desire Adam more than her relationship with God.

This is a faulty conclusion. It is the way that we have been trained to think as if it is always her fault. No, it is not her fault. Adam did this sin on his own. Adam in his sinful male ability to overpower and dominate, chose to do so over her.

If we look at Israel in the OT, we will see that there were times when God gave them over to their enemies. Even those who did not sin with Israel had a consequence of being given over and ruled by the enemies, although God kept them safe throughout their trial. There are times when the innocent ones will have to suffer alongside the guilty. It is a result of the fallen state of humanity and this world.

I really appreciate the way that you have thought through these questions. It shows to me that you are thinking and reasoning and trying hard to work this all out with the Scriptures. This is so commendable!

Lin,

As gengwell said earlier, it takes two to tango. Eve wrongly turning toward Adam instead of God, gave Adam the power to rule over her in the first place.

So it is now Eve’s fault? If she didn’t give him the power to rule over her then it would not have happened?

I would also like to see the Scriptural proof where Eve turned away from God. Where is the Scriptural proof where God explains that it is Eve’s sin that will cause Adam to rule over her.

I am sorry, but I can’t buy that without Scriptural proof.

Lin,
You said:

It is ironic in many ways. Comps teach that now, in the NC, the husband’s ‘rule’ is good. (They describe it as leadership but it is really rule). They also describe her ‘desire’ in Genesis as usurping his authority which they say makes his rule a bad sort of rulership.

This exactly what my next post will be on so I will wait to comment there in this area.

You describe her ‘desire’ as good and his rule as bad.

I say they are both bad. I have explained before I believe it is actually more like turning toward Adam and away from God. (Or her depending on Adam for needs that only God can meet)

This is where I believe it is very important to look at the text and to see where the connection between words develops the meaning. It appears to me that you are saying that her desire is spiritual so that she gets her spiritual needs met through Adam rather than God.

However when we look at the inspired words we see that the “desire” is connected to something physical not something spiritual. Look at it carefully.

“In pain you will bring forth children, yet….” This talking about the pain that she will experience but despite the pain she will do something unexpected…she will desire the man.

“In pain you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband…”

The conjunction word “w” is connecting something physical (pain) to something physical (desire for the one who has brought you into the pain). There is nothing in this passage that even hints that she is desiring him spiritually. It is a physical context, not spiritual.

The next part of the connection is also physical.

Yet your desire will be for your husband. And he will rule over you.

This connection goes from a physical desire (to be with the husband) to something unexpected, he will take his rule over her. He physically takes dominion over her just as he physically takes dominion over the animals.

If her desire/turning is good then it is the same as the desire/turning that comps NOW think a woman should have for her husband as in his being her leader or authority.

I disagree. Comps believe that her responsibility is to give up her independent life and to rely on her husband for all spiritual decisions. More about this one in the next post.

That is her role…to turn toward her husband as the leader. They teach this as Christian virtue. This ‘desire’ or turning actually puts him in the role of prophet, priest and king.

However there is nothing in the Genesis 3:16 passage about the wife following a leader. The issue is physical not about a spiritual leader.

What I believe is far different than what comps believe. I believe that her desire is not sinful but is an unexpected positive reaction after her pain. His will to rule her is not positive. It is a sign of his sin nature.

Now fast forward to today. Women today and not like Eve who did not have a sin nature. We not only have been convinced that a man is to be our spiritual leader and our spiritual inter-mediator between God and us but we naturally look to him for what we need to get from God alone. This is not good. We women are not like Eve, we are like Adam.

Lin,

Cheryl, Do you realize that her turning to/desire for her husband as a good thing would result in the fact that comps are right about roles/patriarchy.

I don’t understand your thinking. Why? Comps believe that Eve’s “desire” is a bad desire to control her husband. What does believing that she was not trying to control him have to do with roles/patriarchy?

It kills the one flesh union concept.

This doesn’t make sense to me. How does having Eve as wanting to control her husband keeps a one flesh union, but having Eve desire to be with her husband kills the one flesh union?

Have a good sleep gengwall. For your night time thinking perhaps you can ponder this: When God predicted Adam’s rule over Eve, did God command Adam to do this or did God commend Adam for this “rule”?

gengwall,
So is the “rule” that God predicted Adam would take over Eve a good thing?

gengwall,

1. I do not believe Eve had a sin nature. That doesn’t mean I believe she was incapable of sinning.

Wonderful to know that we agree that Eve did not have a sin nature. I also do not believe that she was “incapable” of sinning. She was capable and could make the choice just like she could when she was created. However because she had no sin nature, there had to be a reason why she would sin. She sinned in the beginning because she was deceived. If she sinned in regard to Adam, who was deceiving her to sin this time?

I would like to continue exploring whether or not “desire” was sinful, but if you require a second witness to that sin before you would even consider it was “more than neutral”, we are at a dead end.

How then would we know that it was a sin? What evidence would you bring? I honestly can’t see how someone can charge her with sin with the words that are written. How do you justify someone doing this?

That is why I am attempting to compare it to Adam’s sin of “rule” which I am not yet convinced there is a second (or third) witness to.

Was my Biblical evidence for Adam’s sin nature of no value? Do you believe that there is as much evidence for Eve’s sinning against her husband as there is for Adam’s sin nature? Is so, how do you stack the two together to come out with an equal case?

2. I said: “As suspicious as I am of “desire” or “turning” as a virtue, I find the thought of it being relatively inconsequential blather on God’s part to be unfathomable.” Now, what part of “on God’s part” makes you think “relatively inconsequential blather” is directed at you. LOL.

Tee hee. I can’t answer this one since I don’t think that God has said anything that is “inconsequential” or anything that would be “blubbering” “drooling” or the like.

I just think that God meant what He said and said what He meant. It was judgment when He said it was a curse and prophecy when he predicted. But if prophecy is actually a judgment on Eve, then perhaps that could be considered a mistake a.k.a. “inconsequential blathering” since God is making us guess what He meant?

gengwall,

Cheryl – you must type (and think) at superhuman speeds.

Well I did type (if I remember right) 110ish-130ish words per minute when I was in grade 10. Now my brain types words automatically without any thought in my head. It’s not good since I end up typing something that I had not intended just because my fingers got used to typing certain words. And my laptop has slowed me down a lot since the keyboard is different than a regular keyboard. And the thinking? Not so much anymore. Age has crept in.

So, what will it be?

The issue of sin is a big one. I find myself defending the downtrodden especially since I stepped outside the box to understand that Eve did not distort what God had said like I had been made to understand.

I see it this way….would the proof of sin make it in a court of law? There has to be evidence for sin to call someone a liar or to call someone a person with a sin nature.

So if you would like to convince me that Eve had a sin nature, I would certainly weigh the evidence.

I am going to go back to my book this evening and then this weekend will likely put up another post (on Eve!). So if you want to carry on, on that post too, you are very welcome.

I love having people take me on who are respectful and kind. This makes dialog and debate to be helpful both to me and to everyone else who reads this post.

Oh and about the term “blathering”…. I am certain that you meant me and I am still chuckling. Are you sure it wasn’t meant for me? 😉 I am just SO glad that you didn’t end it with “idiot”!

By the way, my fingers typed “certainly” in the paragraph above and I had to correct it. If you come across any other words that I type (and didn’t correct) that seem out of place, blame it on my typing fingers. They are so fast I can’t keep up to them. The only problem with typing is that thinking slows me down. Sigh!

pinklight,

Hey Cheryl, thanks alot for all of this on Eve’s “desire”. It’s taking me some time to get it to “sink down”, but I getten it. It’s just so new and therefore weird/different ;P And I’m willing to disprove your argument wrong, but seriously don’t think it can be done!

Hey thanks! And I know you, that you also push the buttons if you think that the truth has been mishandled. Honestly, if I saw a problem with my argument, I would not keep my argument, but I don’t see any other way to view the text without causing internal problems and contradictions. So here I stand. 🙂

Kay,
You said:

So, Adam’s sin was that he chose to quit having faith in God and was terminally unrepentant, therefore he had to be barred from the Tree of Life. But since Eve was deceived into unbelief, upon realizing what had happened, she repented and continued to live a life of faith accounted as righteousness. Is that what you are saying?

I would add the Adam ate when he was not deceived and he failed his duty as a watchman to protect the innocent. The rest is a good summary.

gengwall,
You said:

Have we considered this – what is the significance “the east” in the placements of the cherubims and flaming sword? I think it has always been assumed that this was at the only entrance to the garden and therefore it kept Adam (and subsequently, Eve) out of the garden completely. But the text doesn’t explicitly say this. It could be interpreted to mean that the cherubims and sword were placed at a location in the garden close to the Tree of Life to protect only it. In that case, even if Eve had stayed behind, as it were, she would have had no access anyway. It also could mean that only a small protion of the garden, maybe only encompassing the Tree of Life, was guarded and the rest was turned to wasteland.

First of all, let’s have a close look at the text:

Genesis 3:22–23 (Darby)
22 …And now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever…! 23 Therefore Jehovah Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Notice that God doesn’t say that Adam was to till the ground in Eden. Adam was sent forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground. Now if the angel was only protecting the tree and not the entrance to the garden, then why was Adam sent out of the garden? There would be no reason to force him out if the tree was protected. Remember that God said that the reason he sent him out of the garden (verses 22, 23) was that he would not be able to eat from the tree of life. Therefore we can conclude that the angel guarded the way to the tree of life by guarding the entrance to the garden.

Well, she did get “stuck with him” if we understand that once she left the garden of Eden, that she couldn’t get back because the angel was guarding “the way”. In the Scriptures there is a symbolic “one way” only. Jesus is the one and only way back to the tree of life and the angel was guarding the “one way” to the tree of life.

gengwal,
You said:

First, I certainly believe Adam shared the same nature of sin with us. But, that nature stems from his original sin. Any post garden sin may be inevitable, but the bible seems unconcerned with it.

I don’t think that we can say that the Bible seems “unconcerned with Adam’s sin nature, when Adam was kicked out of the garden because of his sinful possibilities. Also our own adamic nature is something that we are to die to which makes this nature (one just like Adam’s) as a major issue in the Scriptures.

Now, I think you disagree. I think you are arguing that his future rebellion, i.e. his post garden sin, IS declared somewhere in Gen 3:22-24. Do you consider that the second witness?

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.

1. That he “is become as one of us, to know good and evil”. But Eve also gained that knowledge so, while being spoken specifically about Adam in vs. 22, it is not a condition unique to Adam. If this portends rebellion, then Eve is as susceptible.

The language here is not about gaining knowledge that Adam did not have. The language is that mankind was created to know the difference between good and evil just as God knows it. Mankind was created with a conscience and a wisdom to understand knowledge. This passage is not talking about becoming like God at the fall.

2. That he may “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”. But this is not a sin.

It wasn’t a sin before the fall but after the fall when God specifically said that they would die, they now must stay away from the tree of life so that they can die as God said would happen. At this point in time, eating from the tree of life in direct rebellion to the promise that they would die, would be a sin.

I see nothing in verses 22-24 that talks about a future rebellion, only godly justifications for kicking him out. So, I still have not found the elusive second witness.

I gave three witnesses above.

So you acknowledge that there is no second witness to this sin accusation. We know it is true simply because God prophesied it in Gen 3:16 and God is not a false profit. I agree! I would contend the same would be true of any sin Eve was prophesied to have.

See the three witnesses above.

I agree. But hypothetically, if we could demonstrate that this desire was sinful, would you agree that we could conclude that Eve was guilty of it even though there is no second witness, based solely on God’s prophesy. (You seem pretty convinced that Eve’s desire is not sinful, so I suspect you have no problem afirming my hypothetical).

Sure. I believe that Eve’s sinful actions would be confirmed from the Scriptures, but I can also agree that if God said she would commit sin then this prophesy (or continued sin in Eve) would show a sin nature. Buy it would be up to you to prove that this was written as a sin that Eve would be committing. No one has come up with proof of this “sin” yet, but I am always willing to consider the evidence if it were to prove me wrong.

gengwall,
You said:

The unrelated ideas being her sorrow or toil and her desire, right? So you are saying that a “normal” conjunction of “and” would require the two ideas being joined to logically follow one from the other or otherwise be related. I guess that makes sense. So why would the next conjunction to “he rule over you” be appropriate? How is his rule related to or logically follow her desire if it is a neutral or good thing? Or do you not agree with “and” at this point either?

The way I see it is that each succeeding interconnected thought is something unexpected so the word “yet” or “but” is the best fit. i.e. The woman will have great pain in giving birth to children yet even though we would not expect this, she will still desire her husband and even though she will desire her husband there is also something that happens that we wouldn’t expect. He will respond to her desire by taking authority over her by ruling her.

The pain leads to an unexpected desire which leads to an unexpected rule. All joined together by the conjunction “w” as “yet” or “but”. The results are unexpected but they occur anyway.

gengwall,
You said:

Re: “The Truth Project”. Have you viewed the whole thing? I think you will have an even bigger problem with the marriage section than you envision (better have your subordination arguments at the ready).

I have watched up to the point of the problem issue with “roles” and making Jesus have a different and subordinate “role” in the Trinity. I have already made it known that I have problems with these sections and I will certainly steer the talk around the knowing the truth about these issues that brings a conclusion out that is far different from the host. I am praying how I will handle these issues and while I will be gracious, I do not intend to let the lies that have seduced some be shown as “the truth”.

I didn’t find anything new or enlightening per se at this point in my Christian journey.

I loved it – at least the first few lessons and for one who emphasizes “truth” as the most important area of division between us and the lies of the enemy, it made me even stronger and gave me even more ammunition to preach the gospel of truth. I have appreciated that part.

It seems best directed at seekers and new believers.

It is actually directed towards mature Christians. In the material for leaders, they tell you that this is not material for unbelievers. New believers may benefit from it but it may be more meat than they can handle. We are encouraging one young man to come who has a lot of questions so I will see how this material effects him if/when he does decide to come.

For the future. Eve’s “desire” is a topic about which I want to have an open position thread in my blog. What I mean by “open position thread” is that it is just a place for people to post their position and positive arguments with no (or only passing, position supporting) rebuttal. Certainly, I would hope that you and others who comment here would contribute. I suspect this discussion will help both of us tighten our arguments.

I think that is a good argument although I can’t promise you I will be there for now. I have a hard time keeping up with my own blog and I am up to my ears in writing my first book so I may not be around to help out. At least I can’t promise I will. I got a call from the book publishing company reminding me of my deadline so I can’t dillydally too much and still finish my book. I would be very happy to get that off my plate so that I am less pressured.

gengwall,
You said:

My mind can only envision something that has to be either perpetually virtuous or ultimately sinful (for even if it is only a little sinful, or momentarily sinful, or circumstantially sinful, it still describes an ultimately sinful Eve). To say it is inconsequential, i.e. literally nothing, denies it is an action or behavior at all.

I don’t think anyone here said that it was inconsequential. I surely didn’t say that. To say that it could be neutral doesn’t mean inconsequential. However, I have come to believe that it is a positive sign of Eve’s value for her husband that remains without sin of rebelling against him or setting herself against him.

If it were a condition, or a temptation, or something passive where Eve is concerned, we could make the case that it was universally amoral. But if it is an active thing that Eve participates in, and more importantly, if it affects or is directed toward or against another human being, it has to have a moral component, does it not?

I can pass the ball to someone and it can be a neutral action. However since I do not believe that Eve’s action was “against” Adam, I have come to believe that it was a natural positive action of her being a wife that was not affected by any sin of rebellion. Could it also be neutral? I cannot rule it out and whether it was neutral or positive doesn’t make a big difference to me as long as the text never says it was sinful. That would be problematic for my view.

It seems we can’t use terms like “sentence”, “verdict”, “indictment”, “punishment”, “curse”, “condemnation”, “consequence” or any other word that may imply that Eve was somehow responsible or accountable.

I think we can use these words, if they are the clear view of God towards Eve. However since God makes no claim to be judging her and finding her guilty of rebellion, I think that it would be wise not to charge Eve with sin for which God never charges her.

gengwall,
You said:

Now, I understand what you are saying. You have no proof that Eve committed sin outside the garden and therefore “desire” can’t be a sin. The “Eve was sinless” argument is an argument from silence, but I am inclined to believe that where scripture is silent, it is actually saying something.

It isn’t just that Scripture is silent on what happened after the garden as far as Eve and sin, but also that where we would expect God to condemn, He doesn’t. God doesn’t condemn Eve as if she has a rebellious sin nature and He doesn’t kick her out as if she is in rebellion and is a threat to eat from the tree of life. If there is no condemnation, no rebellion mentioned, no kicking out of the garden and no evidence of a rebellious nature in the future, then God is making a distinction between the man the woman in the past motives and the future actions.

But that still leaves the dilemma of Adam’s “rule”. There is no second witness to this charge, yet we know it is true. So either it is an exception to the second witness requirement, or we are not seeing the second witness. I am curious to hear your thoughts on that.

The word for “rule” means to take dominion over. Anyone who takes dominion over something that God hasn’t given into their hand is usurping God’s rulership and is asserting a man-centered lordship. This is ultimately a rejection of God’s sole right to rule humans. Comps have almost universally seen this verse as a sinful action in the male. John Piper writes as a member of CBMW and he calls the actions of the man as “in like manner” to that of the woman. Here he writes: http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Sermons/Manhood-and-Womanhood-Conflict-and-Confusion-After-the-Fall

When 4:7 says that sin is crouching at the door of Cain’s heart (like a lion, Genesis 49:9) and that it’s desire is for him, it means that sin wants to overpower him. It wants to defeat him and subdue him and make him the slave of sin.

Now when we go back to 3:16 we should probably see the same meaning in the sinful desire of woman. When it says, “Your desire shall be for your husband,” it means that when sin has the upper hand in woman she will desire to overpower or subdue or exploit man. And when sin has the upper hand in man he will respond in like manner and with his strength subdue her, or rule over her.

So “desire” and “rule” to CBMW mean the same thing. To them “desire” and “rule” are taking the upper hand, desire to “overpower”, desire to subdue and a desire to exploit.

It would have been apparent if God had said that same thing to them both. For example just as God used the same Hebrew word for “toil” for both of them to describe both of their hard work that they would have to endure, God could have said that Eve would desire to rule the man but that his strength would out-match her and he would then rule over her. But God does not use the same words. “Desire” and “rule” are not the same thing unless there is something negative added to “desire” to make it evil.

gengwall,

Our sin “nature” is passed on to us from Adam because of his original sin in the garden, not any perpetual sinning he may or may not have participated in once he left.

So what you are saying then is that we have a “nature” that possibly Adam did not? That he possibly only rebelled once and there was a possibility that he did not have a sin nature like ours?

His death is due to that original sin, and so is ours.

Yes, his death is due to the original sin, but remember he was kicked out not because of the original sin. He was kicked out because he had a propensity to do it again. If it was one sin and no more, and he had no sin nature that would have caused further rebellion, then he could have remained in the garden. God’s concern was for a future rebellion not just the past rebellion.

It is assumed based on his sin nature. You assume it, and so do I.

This is the key – he had a sin nature. It is the sin nature that makes it impossible to stop sinning without a complete heart change. Why would Adam be any different with his sin nature than we are? If he could just quit sinning with a sin nature and without a change of heart, it doesn’t seem like he or anyone would need a “new man” created within us. But the fact is that once you have a sin nature you are a slave to sin. It isn’t a question of “if” you will sin since the slave cannot help but being a slave.

BTW – Job had this inherited sin nature but scripture tells us he was a blameless man.

Job was a “blameless man” not because he had never sinned but because he trusted in God. Faith is accounted as righteousness.

Every scriptural reference to Adam and sin, in my view, is related to his original sin.

Well God talked about a future rebellion so this isn’t quite accurate and to think that Adam brought on us a sin nature that he didn’t share with us in, doesn’t seem to be what the Scriptures say. The “old man” or “old Adam” always refers to the nature of sin, no just one act of one specific man.

More importantly, scripture does not witness to the specific sin of “rule” over his wife, which is all we are concerned about here. The real issue is not if Adam generally sinned, but if he engaged in the specific sin of “rule” as Gen 3:16 describes.

God predicted the sin which presumably was already in his heart due to his sin nature. If Adam did not sin in this way, then God was a false prophet. Therefore we know that Adam did sin and God was indeed a true prophet.

I am not interested in the breadth and depth of her sin outside of the garden, but only if she committed a sinful “desire/turning toward/against” Adam. If I can not find a second witness to Adamic “rule”, I also do not expect a second witness to Eve’s “desire”.

First of all we know that Adam was a sinner. God predicted his sin. But the words of God to Eve may not mean sin at all. There is a good and a bad definition. If God provides nothing else then the term, we cannot automatically provide the meaning of “sin” unless there is something else that requires us to charge her with sin. I just have never seen such a charge of sin so we can’t just assume her sin.

Finally, I simply can not fathom God’s prediction of Eve’s future behavior as being “neutral”.

I think it is a positive thing. But I can accept that it doesn’t have to be commendable. However it doesn’t fit the criteria of a sin.

I have to step out now so I can’t finish answering your comment. I will finish it later.

gengwall,
You asked:

So why do you think that “yet” is more appropriate than “and” in “w your desire…” (actually: “and/yet to your husband shall be your desire/turning”)?

Because the words “yet” or “but” provide purpose for connecting these unrelated ideas. Many Bibles bring out this flavor by attaching “yet” or “but” after her desire, but there is only one who I have found so far that is consistent in thought in the rendering of the two instances of the conjunction “w”.

Genesis 3:16 (GNT)
16 And he said to the woman, “I will increase your trouble in pregnancy and your pain in giving birth. In spite of this, you will still have desire for your husband, yet you will be subject to him.”

The word “yet” is synonymous with “in spite of this” and I think that the GNT brings out all of the flavors in this passage that so many have missed.

I hope this answers your question.

Lin,

In the Hebrew phrases are together that consist of many words. We don’t really have this in English except for things like “can’t”. The word can’t is actually a two word phrase which is made up of can and not. The word “can” and the word “not” are not changed just because they are contracted into one phrase/word.

In the same way in Hebrew f we are to compare the part of the phrase that is the conjunction we don’t compare that “part” with the “part” of another word that is a noun.

For example in Genesis 3:16 what is translated as “I will greatly multiply” comes out looking like one word but it is actually one phrase and it must be broken down into its parts so that we know what the grammar is of each of the words.

Another word phrase is “to the woman”. The definite “the” is part of what looks like one word but it’s meaning is not changed because it is part of the phrase.

In Genesis 3:16 God says to Eve I will greatly multiply “your pain” in childbirth. Then in Genesis 3:17 He says to Adam “in toil” you will eat from it. But the word “pain” and “toil” that is part of each phrase is exactly the same word. What God says to Eve about her toil is exactly what God says to Adam about his toil. Do we say that the words are now different because they are in a different phrase? We can’t. We can’t say that they are different because the phrase for the woman is “your toil” and for the man it is “in toil”. The context must include the words within the phrase and it is not different.

The same thing for the conjunction in the phrase that has “yet” and “and” (Genesis 3:16). The conjunction is exactly the same for both phrases therefore they can be compared. If we do not compare the conjunction in each phrase and distance the conjunction as if the items it joins have no relevance, then we are ignoring the context.

I should call attention to the examples I copied. The top Hebrew word is the phrase (combination of words together). Underneath that phrase is the specific word translated as “yet” or “and” in each example. This is the level where we can compare the individual words.

Lin,
Here are the two Hebrew interlinear references

and

This interlinear breaks down each phrase into it’s component parts so you can see that the “yet” and “and” are the same word when they are broken away the attached words. They are both the Hebrew word “w”.

Eve certainly did give up the closeness to God she and Adam had in the garden; how could it be otherwise?

It was God’s choice to walk with Adam and Eve in the garden. But in the sinful word outside the garden, He didn’t appear very much. Since God did still communicate with mankind, I don’t see how it can be a direct turning away from God from Eve’s vantage point since she believed that God was still with her as He promised to bring the Messiah through her seed.

I really hate to attribute “sin” to anything that is not clear that it is sin. Women have been told for centuries that using their gifts for men was sin. I just don’t want to attribute sin to Eve without a direct witness of the Scriptures or I would feel that I may be making a similar mistake as complementarians have with Christians. I am not trying to be difficult. I just see no clear “sin” and since God doesn’t list it, Paul doesn’t list her additional “sin” and no one including Eve lists it, I don’t feel qualified to see something in her heart that hasn’t been given to me from the text.

By the way the Logos system that breaks down the Hebrew phrases into their components has been extremely helpful to me. Not all the interlinears do that. That helps us to compare apples to apples and that is what the copied examples do to help us see that both words are the same.

It is a good time for me to say that I do not necessarily agree with other egalitarian sources. The reason is because I value truth more than a particular position. I do not hesitate to test egalitarian views the same as I test complementarian views. I believe that we should all want God’s truth no matter where it takes us.

When I read a view, I want to poke and prod and test that view to see if it really is consistent with the Bible. I know that this may make some people upset with me, but honestly I have far more of a fear of God than I do of man. I genuinely want to know what God has to say and what His truth is. I believe that His truth will stand up strongly to the test and I do not need to fear truth. If my view fails under the clear Word of God, then I need to abandon that view. If the view of a prominent egalitarian who I greatly respect fails to stand up under the clear Word of God, I will abandon that view too. If I am wrong for abandoning the view because I have failed to consider an important Biblical word or phrase or a corresponding text, then I stand to be corrected. But the bottom line for me is TRUTH.

Last night we started a study in our home called “The Truth Project”. The bottom line for this study is that Jesus came into the world to testify to the truth so truth is a non-negotiable and is highly important. While I disagree with the host of The Truth Project on the section on “roles” and it will be interesting for me to lead this study especially when it comes to that lesson, I can give my full support to the question of truth. If we are to be truth lovers and to fear God, we have to diligently want to know and to accept truth. I do not say this to mean that anyone here is not wanting truth. I am emphasizing this because I want people to know why I have no problem rejecting the egalitarian ‘line’ when it is evident to me that there is a conflict with the Scriptures.

Lin,
You said:

I think we hang a lot on ‘yet’ when other translations render it ‘and’.

Other translations render it ‘and’ and others ignore the word, but it is an important word that should not be ignored. The BDAG says of this word:

The use in Heb. shews that orig. (w) was not a merely copulative conj., but that it possessed a demonstrative force…is used very freely and widely in Heb., but also with much delicacy, to express relations and shades of meaning which Western languages would usually indicate by distinct particles…sometimes it introduces an idea which so exceeds or adds to what has preceded, that it is nearly equivalent to also
Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

The same word that connects the pain in childbirth to her desire for her husband also connects her desire for her husband to his ruling over her. I think it is a serious mistake for comps to look at only the last connection but not to seriously consider that the first connection of the Hebrew (w) is from pain to desire.

Lin, you said:

If Bushnell is right and the original said “a snare has increased your suffering”, then the YET would give me this impression: “Eve, though you were tricked into this and you did not rebel against me, you’re going to make the wrong choice, which will result in Adam ruling over you”. In other words, I see God saying that in spite of the fact that He was not throwing her out since she had been deceived, she would throw her personal intimacy with God away by turning toward her husband for those needs and he would, in return, rule over her.

I don’t think that we can conclude this from the text. Did Eve indeed throw away her personal intimacy with God? The text says that she believed her child had been created with YHWH. Her faith seems to be strongly in the Lord God and any of us can know that we can be in this world and yet still have a personal intimacy with God.

Also God talks about the children that she would give birth to in pain. While she did not have to leave the garden to give birth to the Messiah, she did have to leave to give birth to children (plural). It apparently wasn’t a sin for her to leave and even though she had to make a decision between the garden and her husband she did not have to make a choice between God and her husband since God did not live in the garden nor was He restricted to revealing Himself there. But once she left she too was unable to get back to where she came from.

The bottomline for me is that our relationship with our Creator/Savior is to be much more than our relationship with our spouse, even in a one flesh union. This is where I think comps make an idol of the husband.

Lin, I absolutely agree with you on this bottom line. You are correct that comps make an idol of the husband and I would add that they make him an inter-mediator between his wife and God. He becomes the one who God must speak to, so that God’s will is only revealed through the proper ‘channel’ of the man. This is not scriptural at all.

gengwall,

Is not Job referring to Adam’s actions in the garden still – his attempts to “cover up” for his rebellion, and to justify and blame shift? Gen 3:16 is predictive of events post fall, not mid fall. I still see no second witness in support of Gen 3:16 that points to Adam sinning outside of the garden.

The verse I quoted shows a sin nature – one that continues after the original act. While Adam started his sin nature in the garden, if it can be proven that he continues to sin (by his actions in the garden) and God predicts he has more sin to come and the fact that he gives us his sin nature by inheritance, then his sin nature is proven from the Scripture. The sin that came into the world is sin nature. If you want I can quote the Scriptures on this. Job shows that subsequent to the first act of sin, another sin was committed. The real issue of sin committed outside of the garden is whether Adam has a sin nature or not. It is impossible for Adam to give us a sin nature if he didn’t have one himself.

I think this is an argument of convenience. Seriously, is there anything “neutral” in God’s indictment from 3:14 on?

Yes. God has no “indictment” on Eve. There is nothing in God’s words that says “Because you did this…” The consequences that come on Eve (death) is because of God’s original command that they would die if they ate. In dealing with Eve, God deals with the consequences of her deception and the changes that will happen in her world, but it is not a further “indictment” as if she was a rebellious sinner.

Can the actions of either Adam or Eve really be neutral in relation to each other in the context of the impacts of thier sin on their subsequent lives?

Yes. That is unless God is telling Eve that the serpent is going to hang around and deceive her into doing bad things to her husband. But from the context we can understand that Eve is no longer deceived and she is not about to believe the lies from a legless serpent.

The fact is that Eve goes through no condemnation from God. Her actions predicted in the future have no condemnation either. Adam’s actions do. Adam is the only one who is said to act treacherously toward God (Hosea 6:7).

How God deals with Eve is how God deals with us. By this I mean that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. But there are still consequences of what we have done. Sometimes sin causes some of us to suffer a divorce, etc, even if these same ones no longer commit any willful acts of sin against their partner.

As suspicious as I am of “desire” or “turning” as a virtue, I find the thought of it being relatively inconsequential blather on God’s part to be unfathomable.

LOL!! gengwall, you are the very first to charge me with “blathering”.

That’s fine. The issue of whether it is a commendable thing or neutral (my own “desire” can be both commendable and something I need to work on because I must rely on God alone for my spiritual strength) may need to be left in the area of something that we just agree to disagree on. But if it is an issue of sin, that I would ask you to seriously consider whether it has been “proved” as a sin. If it isn’t a sin, what is it? The only other thing I can think of are “neutral” and “commendable”. If you are unwilling to consider her actions to be “commendable”, then you may find yourself in the “neutral” zone.

I am still laughing. “Blathering” eh? Hmmm… So cute!

If one reads through the “good portion” set aside for the wives of the seminary students that they call “semwives” on John MacArthur’s Master’s Seminary, you will see that it includes not the deep things of God but “salad supper recipes”, “disciplined use of our time”, “hospitality samples” and “how to prepare a testimony”.

It greatly saddens me that women are not allowed to learn even though there is not even one Scripture that they could base this on that denies learning to women.

Lin,
I don’t have a problem with the translation “turning toward” her husband. However “turning away from God” I can’t find in the text. It isn’t that God says it is your husband or me. He is the one who gave her husband to her and she can have them both. She just can’t stay in the garden and be with her husband. Did God appear outside the garden? The Scripture shows us that He did to many people and Eve believed God for His promises by the words that she spoke so it doesn’t appear that she turned her back on Him. I am just not sure why people have to add a turning away from God in order to have her turn towards her husband. Thoughts?

Lin,

While I do think that relying on our husbands instead of the Lord is not helpful to our husbands and this is because we are sinful human beings, is there a difference for Eve. One thing that hasn’t been brought out much (if at all) is that the connection in grammar is first of all to her giving birth to children in pain “yet” or “but” she will desire her husband. If the connection is first of all to the issue of pain and this connects to her desire, perhaps we have not looked at the full picture. If she desires him in spite of the pain that she will experience, could this be a good thing? It is worth thinking about to make sure that we haven’t missed anything that is there and inspired in the original text.

It is so good to be able to discuss these issues in an egalitarian environment.