Cheryl Schatz

gengwall,

Do you view Eve’s “desire” as a virtue?

I believe that it is no less than neutral as it is not a sin. I do not believe that it is harmful to him.

gengwall,

We know Adam was a sinner in the garden but what second witness do we have that Adam sinned outside of the garden? I am only aware of the first witness of Genesis 3:16?

The issue is that Adam was a sinner in the garden because of his rebellion. Someone can sin without having a continued nature of being a sinner. While a sinner (one who has the nature of continued rebellion) cannot change his stripes without being born again.

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

Adam not only sinned but subsequent to his sin he covered over his transgression. This is a sin, is it not?

I should say that it would be a “first failure” for God to provide a second witness, if indeed Eve is a persistent sinner.

gengwall,

Then your false prophet argument holds for Eve as well as Adam.

If indeed it can be proven that the statement cannot be positive and that this is “sin”, then the false prophet argument also holds true. But God also has consistently given us a second witness regarding sin. We have lots of evidence that Adam was a known sinner, but Eve? This seems to me to be the first failure of God’s to give a second witness to a persistent sin nature in a person who has not been charged with rebellion.

gengwall,

I might add that even if Eve’s “desire” is toward her husband, which in turn means her desire is turning away from God, that “desire” is inherently sinful. Are you really trying to claim that Eve’s “desire”, whether toward or against Adam, is a virtue?

I can tell that you are really thinking this one through. Good for you!

It has been claimed by some that turning toward her husband means turning away from God. In fact that seemed logical to me for a long time, but is this what the text says? Which part of the text mentions God? Which part of the text adds on that Eve would turn away from God? Is it possible that we have added this thought to what the actual text says? Or if the text really does say this, where does it say it?

Thoughts?

gengwall,

Ah. I understand now. So – where is the second witness that Adam himself exercised domineering “rule” over Eve?

Okay, you want to have evidence that God is not a false prophet? You do realize that if the “rule” is by definition one that is taking dominion over another person and that is “sin” and if that doesn’t actually happen then God is a false prophet, right?

Here is a second witness:

Romans 5:19 (NASB)
19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Adam is included in the “many were made sinners” as he was the origin of the original sin. As a habitual sinner he continued in disobedience and God’s prediction that one of his sins would be taking a rule over his wife. We can find Adam referenced as a sinner in the OT and the NT.

On the contrary we never find Eve listed as a sinner (with inherited sin) nor find a judgment made against her. There is no comment about any “sin” that she did after the garden nor any doctrine that sin also comes through her now that she “continued” to sin.

It is a hurdle to cross for sure if one intends to charge Eve with sin. I would love to sit back and watch it done because maybe I could learn something from it. Or maybe not.

gengwall,

I think you are implying that there is. It is true that patriarchy is the dominant institution in the OT, but it isn’t protrayed as negative. So I don’t think you can claim this as a witness to Gen 3:16.

The OT portrayed this “institution” in a neutral way just as slavery was portrayed in a neutral way. It doesn’t mean that God affirmed their actions.

One other thing that just came to mind. If Genesis 3:16 is talking about something that is not a sin about Eve and is something that all/most women share then Genesis 3:16 can be also taken as predictive of future women. The major problem comes when one see the future “act” as a sin – and it hasn’t even been committed when it was spoken! And lastly she doesn’t have Adam’s sin nature.

I understand that it might be offensive to think that God was predicting one sin that would be found in Adam and one tendency that would be found in all men, while at the same time predicting one action of Eve’s that is not sin, but may also be a tendency in all women. But it wouldn’t be the first time that there is this inequality in the genders. After all the blood line of Adam is counted as going through the male and Jesus could not have a human father because of the sin nature that would have come through the father. But the females while sinful themselves do not pass on Adam’s sin. Is this an inequality? Sure in some ways. It was the way that the Messiah was brought into the world. For the rest of us I don’t think that we will anytime soon need to think that we will have a sinless human born from us without the aid of a male father.

If I am wrong about the “sin” thing then it only takes a second witness that this is a “sin” issue for Eve. And if she practiced sin where did this sin nature come from?

It’s a sticky one for sure. But it is a road that one must travel down if they are going to charge Eve with outright rebellion with her eyes wide open.

gengwall,

This is not a law, nor is it human testimony. Does God need a second witness to proclaim to mankind how mankind will behave under the influence of sin? I don’t think so.

If we are going to charge Eve with sin, yes we need a second witness. No one can be charged with sin without a second witness. This is the whole premise of a good portion of my talk on “Jehovah’s Women on Trial” that I put on youtube. The first clip is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b08ZkEzqvVU and the entire 6 clips are listed on this blog page http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/10/31/women-on-trial/

If Genesis 3:16 isn’t about Eve at all and what she will do but it is about all women and their sin, how would we know that?

Greg Anderson,

Even though the text does not explicitly state that Eve was not pregnant prior to the fall, the weight of evidence as you have shown would argue that she wasn’t.

It would be difficult to work into the text a child who was born without a sin nature. Rather all of us were all kept together under sin and there are no “special” children who were perfect.

I still cannot agree however, that increased pregnancies in the pre-flood world was an act of compassion on God’s part to preserve humanity.

Well, if the woman was meant to conceive every hundred years there might have been problems without a change. For example once we were susceptible to death not long after 100, there would be not many offspring for the few who made it to 100. Do you know what I mean? I think that this is one area that I would like to as God about when I get to heaven. I would like to find out how long Adam and Eve stayed in the garden before sin entered the world and what conception would have been like had Eve not been deceived into sinning.

If the record of scripture is inclusive that all pre-flood humans lived to great ages with no “die-off”, then it seems reasonable to me that the antediluvian humans were close to breeding themselves out of existence.

We also don’t know how long a woman’s fertile period would have lasted during this time. One hundred years? I don’t think anyone has an inkling of the answer. Ah, yes, another question to ask God when we all get to heaven. 😉

Still Cheryl, I would hate like heck to have to face you in a court room as a prosecutor trying to convince a jury that a woman is in sin for teaching the Bible to men.

Thanks Greg! By the time I am done with this subject, I think I will have turned over every rock and searched out every crevice for clues to the truth. I have always wanted to do the very best job that I can do!

gengwall,
You also said:

I guess some people, while viewing Adam as fully representative of the worst inclinations in husbands, view Eve as only marginally representative of wives, and even in that, only representative of their good inclinations.

I don’t think that many of us women measure up to Eve who did not have Adam’s sin nature although most of us understand what it feels like to have a strong desire for marriage and male companionship at least at some point in our lives. However for a good many men they would have nothing to do with women if it were not for sex. To some of these men, women are less than perfect companions since most of us don’t grunt, belch or spit enough to make a good companion 😉

gengwall,
I am so happy that you were just out “walking” for a time and planned to come back. I am certain that I am not the only one who would miss you 😉

You said:

Both Jesus and Paul refer to Genesis when specifically discussing marriage. Paul even refers to the fall in 1st Timothy 2 when specifically (in our egal view) talking about a married couple.

True enough but I don’t think that Paul was talking about their marriage relationship. I think he was talking about the first man who wasn’t deceived doing nothing about the first woman who was deceived. Deception was a serious problem in the garden just as it was a serious problem in Paul’s time.

And Gen 3:16 certainly is talking about the relationship between husband and wife. Just as Genesis 2:24 has been considered the “template” for godly marriage, Gen 3:16 has been considered by many (and I thought, everyone) as the “template” for marriage in a fallen world.

Well not every man is like Adam though there are more than enough who are to make the wive’s lives quite a challenge. The question of course is whether the words were meant to warn all men and women instead of just warning Eve.

Perhaps this would be a test of the second witness rule. Is there anywhere in the Scripture where we can use the “male rule” as a focus on the “norm” for marriage in the fallen world? And if there is one or more scriptures that would fit, where is the woman’s weakness listed where it is clear that there is a pattern and it is negative? It seems to me that as all of us are children of Adam and of his sin nature that we are all capable of having every bad character trait that there is – at least in theory.

It also seems to me that we should have more than one verse to build a solid doctrine on that foundation. I really don’t remember any other verses but perhaps they just never popped out at me. If anyone has verses that pertain to the fallen “norm” in marriage, I would be interested.

pinklight,
You said:

The serpent’s desire was to murder Eve – while Adam was with her

This is absolutely correct and it is the hallmark of satan’s schemes. If he cannot murder, he will steal and destroy.

Gazza #169,

As usual you have well-thought-out questions that shows you are thinking through the process. Bravo!

Firstly in 1 Timothy 1 v14-17 Paul goes on from saying he was deceived to describing himself as the worst of sinners. He also uses this to emphasize Christ. His deception dosn’t seem to exonerate him from his sins. How does this fit with Eve who was without Christ and also deceived. Is she not left as a sinner as much of a threat as Adam?

The deception doesn’t exonerate someone from their sins but because the sin wasn’t committed in willful rebellion, God opens a door for mercy to come through just as Paul said in 1 Timothy 1:15.

1 Timothy 1:13(NASB)
13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

So Eve just like Paul was in line to be shown mercy because the sin was not willful. Yet the question is, is Eve left a sinner? If Eve was shown mercy and her sin covered over the only way that she can be left a sinner is if she had an rebellious sin nature. Did she have that nature? Nothing in the Bible gives us any opportunity to argue that way in my opinion. Paul clearly shows that sin came into the world from Adam alone. We all have the one sin nature that comes from only one man. If we had a sin nature from Eve this should be hinted at or mentioned in the Scripture. Then of course we have God kicking out the one who has a sin nature and who is prone to continued rebellion. If Eve received mercy for her one sin because of her deception there is no reason to think that she would act in rebellion in the future since she had never acted in rebellion in the first place.

Also was Eve left without Christ? I don’t think so. The pre-incarnate Christ was the one who walked with them in the garden and He was the one that she faced after she sinned. He shed the blood of an animal and that was used as a covering. He was also the one who knew her heart and He gave no indication that she was a threat to walk in disobedience and rebellion when the tree of life was now forbidden to her because she had to die.

Another thing to notice in 1 Timothy is that Paul gives a second reason why he received mercy:

1 Timothy 1:16 (NASB)
16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

While the first reason was personal (“because I acted ignorantly in unbelief”), the second reason was for our benefit (“so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience” as an example for all of us as believers). It was two reasons for two different levels of application.

Secondly you have said several times that Satan can only speak lies. This understanding seems to require Jesus words that came thousands of years later. If this is fundamental to the passage as you suggest how were the Israelites to understand the passage in the interim?. To put it another way is there anything in this passage (or elsewhere in genesis) that demonstrates the serpent is completely lying to Eve?

Again an excellent question!

First of all we need to understand that satan did not become the father of lies and become without truth at the time that Jesus said it. He has been this way since his fall so what Jesus said was true at the time that He spoke these words, but it was also true for the time that satan spoke through the serpent just as it was true in the time of Jesus.

The key to understanding that God is not agreeing with satan is the term “but now”. What was from the beginning (Adam made in the image of God) has something added to it with the “but now…” What is changed? It is the rebellious sin nature that has come into the world. “From now on” there is a problem.

While this passage doesn’t directly say that Adam had a sin nature, the wording shows that from now on there is a distinctive problem. This shows that Adam’s creation in the image of God is not the problem and the lie that they would become like God is not the truth. They didn’t become more like God at all. Their eyes were not opened to godhood but to shame.

I also see that there are many things in the OT that were not clearly seen by all of God’s chosen people of Israel. Somethings did not come to a full light until Jesus opened their eyes to understand the prophesies about Him. Whether the Jews understood that the serpent was telling 100% lies is not as important as the truth of Jesus’ testimony that it was 100% lies. If we believe Him, then we shouldn’t have to look for truth in the serpents words because we should be able to understand that there was no truth.

If I can help in any other way, I am very happy to help out.

Mara,
Amen! I like the way your translation says it for trying to hinder a woman is indeed “troubling” her.

Marie, welcome to my blog. I appreciate your comments!

Mark,
You said:

This could not be the case if Adam ‘was’ like that before the fall. What Adam ‘has become’ is new from the fall (and continues i agree).

Sorry, that isn’t true. The serpent lied. Adam and Eve would not “become” like God. They already were like Him in His image.

I see what you are saying about the Satan being a liar, but the best liars or decievers or false teachers are those who tell ‘half truths’. The ones who openly deny true teaching are easy to spot. It’s the ones who sound biblical that you need to watch out for.

That may be true of false teachers but satan is not a “false teacher”. He is the father of lies and he has “no truth in him”. Therefore Jesus did not say that there is “half-truth” in him. There is “no truth” in Him. Nothing. Nada.

I believe that what the Serpent said was a half truth.

This is why you are deceived. You believed half of what the serpent said when it is all a lie.

They did become like God knowing good and evil, but not in the way that Eve expected- a ‘desire’ to become ‘wise’< ,/blockquote>

As I said before Adam already knew the difference between good and evil. He was not deceived. He did not become more like God when he ate the fruit. He became tainted and thus still in the image of God but actually less than God as he now experienced and lived out evil in the way that he dealt treacherously with God.

Mark, you will never come to know the truth until you realize that it is God’s word that is true an satan’s word that is fully a lie.

The irony is that rather than becoming ‘wise’ when they ate, they became ashamed of their nakedness.

Another of satan’s lies, eh?

I think there is more to knowing good and evil than just experiencing it, but i am well aware that this issue has been unresolved for centuries, and people never seem to agre on it.

The problem is that until people understand that there is no truth in satan, many will continue to be deceived.

When I was first studying to witness to Jehovah’s Witnesses I came across a quote from the founder of the Watchtower. He stated that a truth told by satan is just as true as a truth told by God. He said that we need to accept truth wherever we find it. Now to many this sounded correct but it is not right. Jesus said that there is no truth in satan and so we do not accept anything that satan says as truth. Jesus said in John 18:

John 18:37 (NASB) Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

Jesus said that He came to testify to the truth. If He then says that there is no truth in satan how can we believe Jesus and yet say that satan taught a half truth? Truth is a very important matter and this issue is a key. For if we do not have a measure for truth, we will fall for anything. Trust the Lord Jesus who testified about satan. My friend, there is no truth in satan.

Mark,
You said:

Why have you said that Adam ‘was’ and continues to be…?
The text clearly saids that he has ‘become’ (hayah) like one of ‘us’.

Because it is in the perfect tense. Adam “is” like God and he always “was” like God because he was created in the image of God. His becoming like God didn’t just happen that day. It didn’t happen because of the event of eating the fruit. The reference is to the nature of man what he actually “is” now and who he “was” in the past because of the creation of God.

Mark,
You said:

I am glad you attempted to address all of my post, I give you credit for that. It seems that since I last logged on, comments have risen so I won’t have time to answer them all- but a few observations.

I make a habit of trying to address all of the questions. I see that you don’t try to answer all of the questions but miss out on a lot of them. If I can suggest subscribing to the notify feature that is below the comment box if you haven’t done that already. That way you will be sent a copy of the comments to your own email address so that you can keep track of the questions that you have been asked so that even if you cannot answer now, you will consider the questions worthy of answering later.

Why have you over emphasised what I said about Eve being technically made from the earth.

Why do you say I “over emphasized” what you said? Does this mean that you are prepared to changed your view or are you holding onto the same view. If you are keeping the same view, referencing that view and commenting on it is not “overemphasizing”. It is so easy to say that someone is “overemphasizing” your view if you have no answer to their questions.

Technically she is, since Adam was made from the earth, and Eve from him.

Technically the only thing that is ever said about Eve is that she was made from Adam. If God considered this the same thing as being made from the man, then the text would affirm this. The fact is that there is one and one only person who was made from the dirt.

However I am not trying to deny all the texts you raised. You have taken something you thought would help your view and pushed it way beyond my intentions, rather than engaging more fully with the more crucial matters.

This is called muddying the water. I am allowed to deal with any argument that you make and to say that I “pushed it way beyond your intentions” is quite revealing. Who knows your intentions except for you? And it seems to me that you are trying to bypass the fact that you are wrong. Eve was not made from the dirt and the Scriptures verify my position an never state your position about the dirt. I would be better to say that I am write and you misspoke.

Regarding ‘ha’adam’, we know in 3:9 it can only be referring to one man (not Eve) since the very next verse reveals this- only the man responds.

That isn’t correct. God could have called out to the “humans” and Adam answered. After all he is human. The fact then that Adam answered doesn’t mean that God was referring only to him. The proof is not who answered first. God called to only one person by saying (singular) “you”. “The” Adam answered. The woman said nothing at this time. The singular grammar (and the single man answering) is the best proof that God was using “the Adam” for the male.

However in immediately after the banishment, who is introduced, Adam and Eve- both of them. So the context helps determine who is intended, in 3:9 only the man, in 3:22ff both of them.

This is very poor logic. The fact that both left the garden does not prove that both were kicked out. You can only prove that the man and the woman ended up together outside the garden and the reason why she left would have to be read from the clues in the passage. There is no statement by God, Adam or Eve that God kicked her out.

It saddens me that you dismiss even egalitarian scholars, rather than questioning whether it is in fact you who has it wrong.

I am not parochial. I have no problem in rejecting an eglitarian viewpoint just as I have no problem in rejecting a complementarian viewpoint if I can see that it isn’t a view that is supported by the Scriptures.

Perhaps you can list which complementarian viewpoints that you don’t affirm. Or do you hold to all views because you are parochial and always stick to the party line?

It is not good enough to simply blame them and me that it is comp ‘tradition’ that effects out exegesis.

I didn’t simply blame comp tradition. I first of all showed from the text where their view is wrong and then gave my view of why they held to this view. If I had no Biblical reason for dismissing their view, then I should not have said anything. But my view is based on the truth of Scripture and I don’t accept any position, egalitarian or not, which doesn’t fit with the Scriptures.

It might help you to know that I didn’t grow up in a Christian home or Church, so I am not affected by anything. If anything, the opposite is true, I grew up in a feminist culture. So it is not my past ‘traditions’ that are affecting me.

I guess we could say that you switched from one tradition to another. That usually doesn’t come without baggage.

Also regarding your texts to disprove my point that Eve was not a ‘threat’. I asked you to show me a text that talks about ‘sin’ or even ‘sinners’ as not being a ‘threat’ to God, not to quote texts that talk about unintentional sin.

You may have thought that question in your mind but that is not what you asked. You asked me to show where one sin not rebellion. You originally asked:

Cheryl has told me before that Eve was not “a threat”. What a wrong understanding of sin. I would challenge Cheryl to find any scripture which talks about sin in this way. Sin is rebellion against God.

As far as being a “threat” to the tree of life, no other person was in such a position. I can only show you that God said that there were unintentional sins and others sins were willful. I would like to turn this one around and ask you where unintentional sin is called rebellion?

Your conclusion draws that unintentional sin= not threat, which I think is wrong.

No, that is not right. I am saying that the one who sinned unintentionally, when they have their eyes opened to the sin is not a threat to re-offend. Because Eve only sinned because she was conned, and now her eyes are open, she will not take of the tree of life when God tells her not to take now. She was not in rebellion before and she will not disobey God now that she knows the truth.

Sin is an offense to God, whether it be intentional or not, if that were not the case there would be no need for sacrifice, either through Mosaic law or Jesus Himself.

What you have missed out on is that God judges the heart. Those who sin unintentionally do not have the same heart condition as those who sin willfully.

Did Jesus die once for ‘all’, or once for ‘intentional’ sin only?

No one is saying that unintentional sin is not sin. But the heart is different and Jesus died for all of our sins.

Also please engage with relevant biblical texts regarding sin, rather than simply saying they are ‘Calvinistic’. Either the text is saying no-one is righteous or it isn’t.

I do not want you to force Calvinism onto this blog. I will answer your question but I am warning you not to high-jack this blog.

The OT reference that the NT is linked to tells exactly who the text is talking about. And Scripture clearly calls some people as righteous. If no one is righteous (even though all still need a Savior) then the Scripture contradicts itself. Perhaps you care to explain why the Bible says that some are righteous. Jesus said that no one is good. But the Scripture says that some are righteous and they are credited with this righteousness because of their faith in God.

It is either saying no one seeks God or it doesn’t.

It isn’t saying that. The OT reference is to the fool. No fool seeks God. No fool is righteous. No fool fears God. But the fear of God is the beginning of righteousness.

Also why are Noah and Abraham declared ‘righteous’, is it because of their works or because of God’s grace?

They were declared righteous by their faith in God’s word. Thus they were saved by grace through their faith.

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

You said:

Faith is a gift of God

The “kind” of faith that is a gift is the spiritual gift of faith and just like the gift of miracles and tongues, not everyone has these gifts. But the our faith in God is a response to His revelation that we are required to have.

Paul conclusion therefore in Romans 3 is that by or in themselves, no one is righteous- “all have fallen short”. Notice the text does not say ‘except Eve’!

You are arguing in circles. No one said that Eve didn’t sin. What I am saying is that Eve did not have Adam’s sin nature. She was not in rebellion. You cannot compare apples to monkeys.

I can see now how you come to very wrong conclusions about sin in the fall narrative, since you don’t understand how sin is understood in the rest of the bible.

You my friend do not understand. You are the one who thinks that all sin is alike and that all sin is rebellion. Until you come to a Biblical understanding, you are unlikely to understand the difference between the one who sinned because of deception and the one who sinned in rebellion. I would encourage you to study this issue.

Also it is not good enough for you to say that these sorts of issues are not relevant to the issue of women in ministry. The aspect of sin seems very relevant to your arguments right through the bible, so please don’t ignore them, when you yourself use them in your own arguments.

I will not have you argue Calvinism on my blog. Your arguments are not following women in ministry but arguing a system of theology that is not appropriate for here. After all you give an argument for righteousness when no one was arguing that she did not sin. Since our argument was on the sin nature, your appeal to Calvinism was out of order.

There are more than enough questions for you to answer that have already been asked you regarding women in ministry. If you would like to argue the different views of Calvinism and the Sovereignty of God, I may open a blog on this issue when my DVD comes out but I would ask you to respect me by not making this an issue on this blog. Thanks!

Lin,

Here is an example for Mark that Cheryl and I can disagree. I disagree with this because in Eph 5, the teaching starts earlier with we must be filled with the Spirit and then that we must all submit to one another. I do not see any command that one initiates first. If there is one, I would love to see it.

I don’t think that the Bible commands that one initiates submission first for either gender. I think that is equal. But I do see a responsibility for men to sacrifice first and Jesus loved and sacrificed for his Bride. If we take Jesus and His bride as a symbol of the husband and wife, it does seem to me that she loves Him because He first loved her and sacrificed for her. I don’t see any indication of God going to the church and saying that if we just loved Jesus more, He would treat us better. No, what I see is that He loves unconditionally first. He sacrifices first. We are commanded to submit, to respond to Him and to love Him. But in the best typology of marriage, it is Jesus first and He takes responsibility first. And it is so EASY to love Jesus when he sacrificed first. If this is true, which I believe it to be so, why do counselors seem to focus on women first? They must try harder and harder so that the man can respond.

Maybe I am way off base, but I think that if Christian men would be more like Jesus and focused on the bride, we would all respond. It is really difficult to keep a grudge when the man is loving and sacrificing for us. This is our knight in shining armor. This is Christlikeness in marriage.

But the neat thing is that we get to initiate too whether he does or not. We become Christlike and follow the only one who has never failed us. We women can make a difference if we focus on our part.

This is what I did many years ago and the fruit of it all is a happy and healthy marriage. My husband frequently tells me how wonderful I am and how lucky he is to have me for his wife. And the more he tells me this, the more I want to live up to this high expectation.

Anyway, perhaps we should leave off talking to men about men in marriage if it is offensive to them. This really isn’t what this blog is about. And I sure don’t like to offend a dear brother in Christ.

gengwall,

I think I’m going to take a break. I have written a lot. I can’t say it any other way. If Gen 3:16 is as you describe, then marriage is an irretrievably unbalanced relationship and it’s all men’s fault.

I sense that you are highly offended and I did not mean to cause an offense. I gave my opinions on sacrifice but I did not intend to say that it is all men’s fault. In fact in some situations it isn’t the man’s fault at all. The only time that I see it as the man’s fault alone is in the case of Adam and hopefully we can all agree on that.

gengwall,
You said:

You believe that if she had stayed in the garden, that loss of innocence would have actually helped her guard against further sin. Maybe so. But it is far fetched to believe that to be true when she lived for hundreds of years in a quickly deteriorating world of sin under the harsh rule of her tyrant husband.

I for sure would have a problem living without getting overly angry or responding in sin to a husband who took dominion over me, but how would a woman who doesn’t have a sin nature fair? She would handle it better than I for sure. The issue is that nowhere does the Scripture talk about Eve having a sin nature and speculation about how she did that in the sinful world isn’t probably helpful.

I find the notion that she never sinned again in those hundreds of years to be quite unbelievable. Which brings us back to 3:16 – wouldn’t any future sin of Eve’s be as apparent to God as Adam’s sinful “rule” and couldn’t 3:16 therefore be just as predictive of Eve’s sinful behavior as it is of Adam’s.

We would have to assume that Genesis 3:16 is predicting her sin but the language used isn’t telling us that especially without an antagonist character shown in the passage.

And what would Eve’s practicing sin after sin after sin do to her future seed? When would a practice of sin become a sin nature? And if she had a sin nature why do her offspring not become affected by this sin nature? Do you see how the way we view Eve has further implications for her offspring and that one special “seed”?

Still not buying it. Adam, on the other hand, is universally like all husbands who bring only bad things to marriage?

No, I don’t think so. Adam was one who was said to have acted treacherously. If I put beside Adam the godly men that I know, I don’t think that any of them would act like Adam did. I think they would speak out and not let their wives be deceived. Adam was one man who was unique. He alone brought sin into the world and he represents not just husbands but all of us in our sinful ways.

Where is the verse that describes the good things husbands bring to marriage?

Jesus is the best example of a godly husband and those who follow his example are to be commended.

Where is the verse that describes the bad things wives bring to marriage?

Here it is:

Proverbs 25:24 (NASB) It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

I guess you can call this one “the nag”.

This still leaves the situation at “good spouse, bad spouse” in God’s only predictive statement about marriage as it relates to the fall.

So where does this verse actually say that it is about all marriages not just one marriage? Perhaps we have all gone too far with trying to relate all of us to this verse.

gengwall,
You said:

Not so! Men tend to enforce control through physical means, making it much more visible to the outside world. But that is no proof that men are more controlling, just that they go about it in a different way than women.

I think that men tend to be more controlling and women tend to be more manipulative.

Do I think that marriage is “an irretrievably unbalanced relationship and it’s all men’s fault”. No. I do believe that the problems in Adam and Eve’s relationship from what was recorded in Genesis was 100% his fault. But that does not follow through from all of our marriages. Every marriage and every situation is different but there are things that sinful humans bring into the marriage because of their gender.

I really like Mark Gungor’s series “Laugh your way to a better marriage”. To me he hits the nail on the head regarding gender issues in marriage.

gengwall,
You said:

I trust then that you believe that if women followed God’s command to reverence their husbands, and they truly sacrificed for them in a way that is meaningful for men, that marriages would flourish as well.

Absolutely, yes! But I think that our society has put too much emphasis on the wife initiating when it is the husband who is called to sacrifice as Jesus sacrificed for His bride. Yet I do believe that marriages would be helped if the wife gave her husband respect even if he didn’t “earn” it. This is exactly what I did in my marriage years ago. I believe that the Lord Jesus taught me this when I no longer had love for my husband because of the way he treated me. I told him how I loved the way he combed his hair or I loved the color of the shirt that he chose to wear. I told him whatever truthful thing that I could to show him respect and he did respond. But if he had treated me with love to begin with I would never have lost love for him. Sometimes we are called to sacrifice when our husbands have failed to hold up their end and to sacrifice for us. I believe that the Lord Jesus taught me that I am accountable for myself and that I cannot use the excuse that my husband isn’t doing his part. When I gave first without seeing any response for a long time and I continued to do my part instead of responding to his hurtful actions, it really did help him to see that he didn’t deserve me. It still was a long road towards full healing.

While I believe that the husband has the responsibility to initiate the sacrificial love for his wife, I do not believe that any of us is allowed to sit back and wait for this. We do our part and give it to God and don’t worry if we are not getting our fair share back. We are accountable for our relationship with God and our own actions whether we are getting love or not.

However I do believe that comp counselors focus way too much on women in asking them to submit and let the men go scott-free. It is so easy for a woman to submit to a man who loves and sacrifices his life for her. But a wife who loves and respects her husband does not always get the same back. Sometimes it just promotes more selfishness. This is why I think that men are to initiate because if the sacrifice starts with them, and their wives respond in the biblical way there is a much greater opportunity for oneness, healing and union.

Does this make sense?

gengwall,

Oh my!!! This is stark double speak and I must protest. Everyone talks about how Eve’s “desire” represents something that all wives will gravitate towards just as Adam’s “rule” is applied to husbands. Eve has always been discussed as representative of wives. But now, suddenly, when the issue is raised that maybe this “desire” is negative, wives are no longer in view?

Let me put it this way. Eve is like all wives when viewed regarding the good things that women can bring to the marriage about (like typically women seem to want to please their husbands and long to be married) but Eve is also not like all wives who unlike Eve struggle with our sin nature that causes us to be less than perfect beings. We as women are all flawed just like our husbands.

So to recap, Eve was a woman like us, but she was not a rebellious sinner like us. If I am wrong about that and God, Eve or any of the apostles described Eve as a rebellious sinner with a rebellious sin nature, then I stand to be corrected.

I see it as important because Jesus came through a woman yet had no sin nature. Jesus came through a sinner (Mary) yet her seed brought no sin nature. If Genesis helps us understand that, then the account of Eve’s fall into sin will help us in other areas too.

gengwall #140,

Cheryl – do you believe Eve was sinless after she left the garden?

The Bible doesn’t say whether she ever sinned again or not. We do know that a sinless person can choose to sin eitherwise neither Adam or Eve could have sinned in the first place. But the sin nature that Adam had is a propensity to sin, not just an ability to sin. Eve did not inherit that sin nature and nothing in the text said that she had a nature of rebellion. That is really what I am keying in on. The discussion is the texts at hand and what Eve did afterwards is speculation. While none of us can choose to not sin and just decide to never sin again since our since nature causes us to fail even good intentions, I believe that Eve was able to choose not to sin.

Does this help to answer your question?

Kay,

The more I read Gen. 1-3, the more it seems apparent to me, that comparing Adam and Eve’s marriage to anyone else’s marriage since then, is like comparing apples to rocks. Eve was not one of Adam’s daughters. Eve was his ‘ezer kenegdo.’

This is exactly right! In the issue of marriage I don’t think that we can use Eve as an example of all women since Eve is not one of Adam’s daughters. It is when we treat her as if she is one of us (a woman with Adam’s sin nature) that we can misunderstand what was written about her. I believe that we need to start thinking outside the box about Eve and understanding her from the perspective of a sinless woman who fell into sin through deception and then went on with her life with her eyes opened but without the rebellious sin nature that was in her husband. If ever there was a recipe for strife this would be it. But they managed to stay together and have kids together. There is probably a lot that we can learn from this example but one thing that we cannot forget is that Eve was not tainted by Adam’s sin nature. If we forget that we can come to some wrong conclusions.

This is just another area where we need to rethink our presuppositions about the Scripture. Rethinking also stretches me as I try hard to work off my own prejudices and presuppositions so that I can see what the Scripture itself says.

pinklight,
You said:

The serpent was cursed for what it did – it deceived Eve. Therefore I think it’s pretty important that we get straight that there is a difference in the way Adam and Eve sinned, and a difference for why each said what they did. Eve had a reason for bringing up the serpent for what it did to her, but what was Adam’s reason for bringing up God and the woman when they did nothing to him?

You have done a good job in answering Mark. Eve certainly had a good reason for saying that the serpent deceived her as it was true.

Now as far as Adam goes, when God said that he listened to the voice of his wife, there is no record of his wife speaking to him when she offered him the fruit. His “listening” was when his wife was speaking to the serpent and Adam did nothing. This is the rebuke that came from God. Adam not only ate the fruit but he merely listened to his wife being deceived, when he knew better because he was not deceived – and he did nothing. Think of this – Adam was not deceived and he tried to blame his wife (and God!) for giving him the fruit. His blame was worthless. It was not true. His wife did not deceive him. He ate of his own free will with the knowledge that what he was doing was wrong. This was his rebellion and his claim that his wife was to blame was not true. God did not curse his wife for tempting her husband or giving the fruit to her husband. God would have done this if Adam’s accusations were right. But Adam had no one to blame but himself. Therefore Adam did not place the blame in an honest way while Eve did.

Thanks for all your thoughts, pinklight. Keep up the good work!

This will be my last comment for tonight.

Nicole, you asked:

Some questions:
1) Is it possible that Eve sinned after leaving the garden and so her sin nature came a different way than Adam?

If this was so, then Eve’s children would also have inherited her sin nature. The problem with this is that there is no Scripture to say that she had a sin nature, where it came from, or why her descendants didn’t inherit it.

2) Since sin is sin, regardless of deception, could her so-called “punishments” have been instead corruptions? Like God saying “I am not punishing you but here are the natural consequences of your decision.” That is what my parents do when I make a bad decision based on false information, so just a thought.

Well, I do believe that the necessity to “greatly increase” her conception was a consequence that would have to naturally follow her being in the death process. But as far as a “natural consequence” that is actually a punishment, her punishment is what God had told her from the beginning. It was that she would die. The only real punishment that came was to the one who deceived her (he was cursed) and the one who failed to protect her (he had a curse placed on his behalf).

3) “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Enabling bad/abusive behavior is just as bad (in my opinion almost worse) as being abusive yourself. Could this “turning/desire” be the when women worshiped the acquiring of a husband? I know many women (from many backgrounds) whose sole goal is to lay claim to a man and they will justify anything he does, because they only see him as an extension of themselves, not as a human being.

As far as women who enable bad abusive behavior, I think that this is not a good thing. I cannot qualify Eve’s patience with Adam since I don’t know what she did or didn’t do about his bad behavior. There is just not enough evidence to make a judgment call. I just know that Eve did not inherit a sin nature from Adam and her sin was not an act of rebellion as his was.

gengwall,
You said:

If “desire” is the antithesis of “rule” instead of a parallel detrimental action, the verse is horribly unbalanced against men.

I’m sure you will understand that I, as a man, have a very difficult time accepting such a conclusion. I don’t believe men are more capable or inclined than women of bringing strife into marriage even though they have more often been guilty of it throughout history. And I certainly don’t believe that men are the only gender that brings strife, with women being the only gender that suffers from it.

Men are certainly not the only gender that brings strife into the marriage. But in the Christian community I do believe that if men followed God’s command to love their wives, and they truly sacrificed for them, most marriages would not only survive but flourish. Most women desire to be loved this way and when their needs are met they are happy and contented to meet his needs. For some reason we think that women should be the ones to sacrifice first, but I believe that the best balance comes when the husband takes the place of one who loves and serves. It just isn’t easy for a man to do this even though in his head he knows that he has been called to love her this way.

gengwall you said:

So, although I agree with your assessment of history in its practical application of Gen 3:16, I don’t believe that tips the balance in what the verse is saying about wives and husbands generically. In other words, I don’t think the verse is presenting a case of “bad spouse; worse spouse”, and it certainly is not presenting a “good spouse; bad spouse” scenario.

I don’t think that Genesis 3:16 is all about everyone’s marriage. I do believe that it shows Adam’s rebellion and the tendency for the majority of men to struggle with wanting to control shows that somehow this tendency has come through Adam’s sons. Some women also have a sin problem with control, but typically it is far less in women then in men. But Genesis 3:16 is all about Adam and Eve and so we cannot get information about most wives from someone who didn’t inherit the sin nature that the rest of us have.