Cheryl Schatz

pinklight, you said:

Eve wasn’t born of Adam so she does not inherit a sin nature. Sin comes into the world through Adam not Eve. No where does scripture teach that she was a rebel like Adam. They both sinned so they both died, but only one was a rebel.

Always excellent reasoning coming from you. I sometimes wonder if staying up late is good for the brain. It seems to do you good 😉

Cindy K said:

Not exposed to many of these gender teachings that are so prevalent today when I was forming my understanding of Scripture, the discussions here are always thought provoking. The forum offers an opportunity to bring what I understand through the reading of the Word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit privately and things I have been taught or heard preached before into a broader audience and into a more specific scrutiny (not guided by my particular denomination’s position).

I praise God for the opportunity to have iron sharpening iron here and for us all to passionately think through these issues. I don’t recall anyone in my growing up years who challenged me to think outside of tradition and to think from the text alone. I sure wish I had started earlier!

Greg,
You said:

I can’t say that I agree though, that increased pregnancies was God’s ordained way to ensure the survival of humankind so much as it was just another aspect of a broken and messed-up creation.

I would be interested in your take on the “greatly increased conception” and an explanation for why there was no conception before the fall?

gengwall, you said:

Is Adam’s “rule” a good thing in Eve’s eyes? Certainly not. I don’t believe her “desire” is any less favorable in his eyes. Cheryl, your stance seems to be that Adam’s “rule” is simply taking advantage of the prostrate Eve, who now, dutifully, with narry a harsh word or action, follows almost trancelike after her abusive husband. In this view, his “rule” has nothing to do with anything negative she has done, but is just a senseless, cruel, response to her “good in his eyes” “desire”. That makes wives universally the martyrs and completely exonerates them of any negative behavior toward their husbands which would lead to marital discord.

Remember I said that I believe that Eve left the garden for two reasons. One was because she desired the man and the other would be because he took his rule over her. Adam’s rule had nothing at all to do with his wife’s actions. An abusive rule has no blame on anyone but the perpetrator. If we excuse Adam saying that perhaps he was 80% to blame but she was 20% to blame, then we fall into the trap of giving an excuse for the perpetrator. Now if any one of us women were there as sinners we are, then perhaps we might have pushed his buttons, but Eve was not a rebellious sinner like we are. Adam has to take full accountability for taking dominion over his wife who was the only woman in the world who did not have a sin nature. There was no excuse for him to eat the fruit and there is no excuse for him to rule the woman. Not even one hint of an excuse. And if anyone thinks otherwise, then please educate me.

gengwall, you also said:

Is Adam not a hostile enough character for you? Even if the antagonism were only one way – like it is with Cain and Able in Gen 4:8 where el is translated “against” – that is enough to consider that Eve’s “turning” was against Adam. I think a translation of “against” is at least on the table.

I am not trying to be contentious at all. I just want the truth of God’s word as it is written without our tradition twisting the text. Adam’s antagonism toward Eve cannot be used to make her “desire” into a negative thing. At least not without some term that makes her with a negative intention toward her husband. While I can admit that the word can have a negative meaning, we need to be very careful to not attach a negative meaning when the context doesn’t warrant it.

No sin nature came through Jesus through the line of the woman.
Why is that? Is it because she didn’t have a sin nature and that only one person brought rebellion into the world? That is how I see the it so clearly in all of the Scriptures. Those who think that Eve had a sin nature will then have to explain to me why Jesus could not have a human father but He could have a human mother if both of them carried the sin nature?

gengwall said:

Of course, as Mark surely knows, this is half what I believe. I would not say that her desire is to usurp her husband’s authority because I do not believe any authority has been granted to the husband. I am not certain what her desire is for. I only believe that it is negative to the marriage. But her husband has no authority over her to usurp, so that can;t be it.

I think that to understand the after fall account we must be able to separate Eve from the daughters of Adam. Eve did not inherit a sin nature from Adam but all women since then have inherited his sin nature. What women do in their sin now cannot be read back into Eve’s actions because of the issue of our sin nature is not there for Eve.

I think that there is a lot in Scripture that we can use to teach on marriage and Genesis 3:16 certainly has some problems with man’s rule, but can we really attribute sinful characteristics of all women to what Eve did?

I think we must think this one through. Inherited sin is rebellion against God. While Eve showed shame after she sinned, did she also show rebellion? I just can’t see any Scripture that tells us that she was in rebellion. And if she was not in rebellion, then must her “desire” be a sinful thing? The context will be key. Where is any negative word used of Eve toward Adam? Where is any sinful word used alongside of “desire” to make it sin? We can’t use Adam’s actions to qualify “desire” as sin, since it is said to be her action not his. So if we really want to seriously think this one through, where are we going to research and find a sin nature attributed to Eve?

Now all of Adam’s daughters struggle with some kind of sin. They are not perfect and they are not usually 100% blameless for a marriage breakup because both parties are sinners. But I don’t think that it is fair to Eve to attach our sin to her character. Thoughts?

Mark,
You said to pinklight:

There is not difference of nature here. And in the same way that God knows Adam told the truth, he knows Eve told the truth, since he curses the snake. But should we conclude therefore that Eve (or Adam) have seperate sin natures. No i don’t think so.

The sin nature is revealed through continued rebellion. We know that Adam has this rebellious sin nature because God says that Adam is the one who may rebel again and take and eat from the fruit of the tree of life. God also says in Hosea 6:7 that Adam had dealt treacherously with Him. And it was Paul who said that it was one man alone (Adam) who brought sin into the world. All of the evidence is that Adam was continuing in his rebellion because he had a sin nature and that sin nature was passed on to us so that we are all naturally rebellious against God’s rules.

But where is Eve ever called rebellious? God does not say that Eve dealt treacherously with Him, nor does Paul or any other author say that Eve’s sin is passed on to her offspring. Where could Eve have received this sin nature of rebellion? She could not have inherited it from Adam? I challenge anyone to give a Scripture that lists Eve as bringing sin into the world or passing rebellion onto her offspring or even a hint of rebellion that would have caused God to kick her out of the garden.

Paul tells us in 2 Cor 11 of his fear that the Cor will be led astray in the same was as Eve was by the serpent. He is not excusing Eve of guilt. Do you think he would excuse sin, when he is so grafic about the nature of sin in other parts of the bible (Rom 1,3; Eph 2)

Mark, what you don’t seem to get is that we all agree that Eve sinned. It is the issue of continued sin through a nature of rebellion that is the issue. If you believe that the Bible affirms that an innocent person who was deceived into sinning will get a a nature of rebellion from that, then you will need to prove this from the Scripture. God draws a line between Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin and only one of their sins was done in rebellion and the taint of rebellion was only upon one of them.

And in 1 Tim 2 Paul explicitly talks about the woman who was deceived and became a transgressor. Here Paul is explicit in teaching Eve was a transgressor. She is a sinner.

Verse 14 is about “the woman”, the one who is still in that transgression. She is still deceived and still in that sin, but this can’t be Eve as Eve is dead and gone. The one who is continuing (perfect tense) in the state of sin is alive at the time of Paul’s writing.

So what does Paul actually say about Eve? He said that she was deceived. The woman who is a concern for Paul is like Eve but Eve is not called a sinner nor was her offspring (Jesus) an inheritor of a sin nature through her. It was impossible for Jesus to have a human father because he would have inherited a sin nature from him. It was not impossible for him to have a human mother because no stain of rebellion comes through her. See my post here http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2006/11/20/adam-as-head-of-the-family/ for an understanding of one sin nature that is bypassed through the woman.

Gazza,

The problem is the sin nature if you read it without the filters of tradition. It doesn’t say that he knows good and evil as if the fruit gave him that knowledge. The grammar is the perfect tense which is an action completed but with continuing effects. The question we need to ask ourselves is when did Adam know the difference between good and evil and when did he become like God?

If we believe the lying words of the serpent, Adam just became like God and just came to know good and evil when he ate the fruit. But that can’t be true. Remember two things…Adam (and Eve) were made in the image of God right from the beginning and the Scripture says that Adam was not deceived which means that he had to know the difference between good and evil not to be deceived. He knew that what the serpent was saying was a lie. He did not believe it.

So if the serpent and God are not saying the same things, and it is my contention that they do not agree, then when God says in the perfect tense that Adam was (and continues to be) like God and knew good and evil before he ate the fruit, then this was the problem. Adam always was and continues to be like God except that now he not only knows the difference between good and evil but he has experienced the actions of evil.

Notice next that God says “but now”…. But now, what? But now (in the state that he is in – with a sin nature) it is not good that he lives forever in that state. So in order that he might not live forever by taking of the fruit which no longer belongs to him, he was forced out.

The biggest key here is to notice that Jesus said that there is no truth in satan.

John 8:44 (NASB)
44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

If he is the father of lies and there is no truth in him then the serpent could not be speaking the truth when he said that they would be like God knowing god and evil.

Since Adam already knew what good and evil as he was not deceived, and he was no more like God than he was when he was created, the serpent lied and God isn’t agreeing with the serpent. In fact it is just the opposite. God is saying that Adam was created like God and he knew enough about good and evil not to be deceived but now he had become evil in his transgression and he cannot live forever in this state.

I believe that this is the only way that we can read this passage using the inspired grammar and not having God confirm that the serpent was telling the truth. We need to understand that the serpent was lying and God was not confirming the lie.

It is also interesting that while God physically prevents a return to the tree of life a prohibition from eating of this fruit is never made.

The new prohibition is not directly stated but the actions resulting from the prohibition are clearly shown. The fact is that God told them that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit. They aren’t going to die if they eat the fruit and then continue to eat the fruit of the tree of life. Remember that this is God’s testimony that if Adam stretched forth his hand and take and eat from fruit of the tree of life, he would live forever. So the tree of life had to be forbidden to them.

An interesting side note is that according to Eve’s testimony they were forbidden to “touch” and “eat” of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now they were forbidden to “take” and “eat” of the tree of life. It was two actions that are no longer allowed – no taking and no eating – and thus Adam was sent away.

So we do not have to have a direct quote from God to know that there was now a prohibition about the tree of life because of God’s words while talking to Himself and God’s actions (removing Adam so he could not “take” and “eat”).

So to recap, the serpent said that “in the day” that they ate, they would know good and evil and on that day they would be like God. But God said that they were created like God. They could not become any more like Him and they did not become more like Him when they ate the fruit. Adam already knew the difference between good and evil since he was not deceived. There was no “wisdom” obtained by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But they did experience evil (one by his rebellion and one by her deception).

I hope this helps a bit for you to work through this passage to allow it to make sense.

Lin,
You said:

Since Adam named the animals wouldn’t it make sense that he had come across the serpent earlier. Even named him?

Great thought! Yes, I am sure that Adam named the serpent and he saw his nature from his creation. Could he even have seen satan enter the serpent? Perhaps and perhaps that is why he too knew that the garden needed to be guarded. This part is speculation but we do know for sure that Adam was not deceived.

pinklight,
You said:

The only thing that Adam was leader of was rebellion and he got a one way ticket out of the garden for it. ;P.

You have so many very insightful comments. I will be going through the comments again later as I have time. Today is another one of those extremely busy days for me.

Gazza,

You said:

Thankyou for being willing to open the bible and explain your viewpoint from the text, I am still digesting your last answers but one follow –up question if I may:
Dosn’t living in the garden go hand in hand with eating from the tree of life and not dying (Gen 3:22)? If Eve is to die as a consequence of her sin then can she still have access to the tree?

Gazza, I am at your service and very happy to serve in anyway I can. The answer to your question is that God originally gave both Adam and Eve freedom to eat from every tree in the garden except for one but the freedom to eat from the fruit of the tree of life must be removed as God said that they would die if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God can take away His permission to eat from that tree and it was a necessity to forbid them to eat of life since they MUST die. Eve was not kicked out of the garden as she was not rebellious and from this we can understand that she would have obeyed the new prohibition that took away the fruit of life. Living in the garden was not an automatic permission to eat from every tree. After all they were living in the garden where one tree was already forbidden to them, right? Once Eve’s eyes were opened to the deception and she received the prohibition that removed her freedom to eat from the tree of life, a now-wise woman without a rebellious nature would obey so she could stay. Adam is the one who, with his new sin nature that brings continual rebellion, would surely be a constant threat. God then kicks him out and puts an angel to guard the “way” to the tree of life. It sure seems to me that once Eve is out of the garden she isn’t getting back in because it appears that there is only one “way” in. Kind of like this way is a symbol of Jesus being the only “way” to life. The angel won’t let anyone near the tree of life but the angel would not have been necessary as a guard if there had been no threat from Adam, but for sure Eve would not have permission to eat from the tree of life as she must also die.

Hi Nancy and welcome to my blog!

The statement of Jesus was focused on non-Christians who would reject the gospel message. Could we use it for Christians who do not accept women in ministry? I suppose in a way it is saying that we can leave where we are not allowed to serve but it doesn’t mean that this is what all women must do. After all the shaking the dust off is a sign of judgment against the people and I don’t think that God is going to send people to hell for not allowing women to minister. Some women have been successful in staying in their denomination so that they can continue to influence people while using their gifts wherever the opportunity arises until more doors are open to them. Sometimes their gifts are so obvious to all that the issue of women’s freedom to minister becomes an issue again that is placed “on the table” and they are able to instigate the change. I don’t think that there is necessarily one right way of dealing with this problem. Sometimes women will choose to stay in their denomination for the Sunday service but participate in teaching others in another denomination for weekday bible studies. God is able to work around stubborn men. And sometimes He pushes them aside and moves a woman on to another place. Other times the only church in the area that allows women is very liberal and the gospel is treated more as a social club than the good news of eternal life. In this case it may not be wise to move but to stay where one is already located in a solid gospel believing church. There are just so many variables but no matter what the woman decides to do, God can and will use a strong Christian woman dedicated to obeying Him and using her gifts for the benefit of the body of Christ. He will find a way and it is amazing sometimes at the opportunities that are given to one gifted woman. Comps will excuse her freedom to minister in their midst by saying that God once in a while chooses to work through an animal or a woman and they see her as a unique call from God.

Hi Gazza, welcome back!

You asked:

Firstly I understand what you say about the first useage of pain in verse 16 being toil and the logic that this is to do with a shorter lifespan and more babies. The second useage you still seem to interpret as physical pain – “she will still desire her husband in spite of the pain that having his children will cause her” My question is how can a just God inflict this pain on Eve if she is indeed innocent.

Pain in this life is a consequence of the death process. It isn’t necessarily a punishment as we don’t usually see God punishing small babies who suffer pain.

God hasn’t told us everything. But He has told us lots to help us understand. Is it okay for God to completely change a woman’s fertility and her cycle so that she is different then she was created to be because she is now in a dying body? Sure. And can this change create pain without it being a punishment? Absolutely. This body of “death” is now on a cycle of pain. If we can understand that the consequences of being in a body that is dying will be pain and we understand that this is not punishment, then is it too hard to see Eve’s pain in childbearing as a natural consequence of an adjustment in a dying body? I just don’t think that we can assume a judgment unless God states that it is a judgment against the woman. Pain is inevitable.

If she is not innocent as your statements in an answers to Mark might suggest #57 “I agree that Eve fell into sin through deception.” Then how is this pain not a punishment for her sin? – presuming that if she had not have sinned it would have been impossible for a just God to inflict pain on her.

Just as with the Jews who thought that the blind man or his parents had sinned and this is why he was “punished” with blindness, we cannot assume that pain or disease is a result of punishment. Jesus said that the blindness did not come because of sin. The fact is that Eve sinned but her pain is not said to be a punishment but a consequence. If God had said that “because you have done this…I am cursing you with…” then we would have to deal with the issue of Eve’s punishment. But we don’t have to deal with consequences of the dying process or the consequences of a change to her fertility either/or causing her pain that she would not have had. As a mother myself who has had three children, I personally don’t think that it is fair that women have to suffer as they do, but I never blamed my suffering on God’s punishment for me being a woman. I expect that we will get all the answers when we get to heaven, but in the meantime I believe very strongly that we are not to read more into the Scripture than it says. If it tells us that the ground was cursed because of Adam, I just accept that. If the scripture says nothing about a curse for Eve and says nothing about her bringing sin into the world, then I just accept that without reading a prejudice against the woman into the passage. Punishment is always clear in the scripture and an additional punishment for Eve is not clear in the passage.

You also make much about God judging between one sin and another – I agree with you that scripture clearly teaches that there is a disparity between sins. However, it is also clear that the consequence of any sin is severe – Leviticus 4 goes on to state that a life must be sacrificed for even an unintentional sin. How can Eve stay in the perfect garden when she no longer meets Gods standards? Surely this must be considered independently of whether Adams sin was worse than Eves – I believe that it was.

Gazza, that is a great question! And it is a question that is clearly answered by the text. There is not a “standard” that needs to be met to stay in the garden. There is only one reason for not being allowed in the garden and only Adam qualified for that reason. You see God didn’t kick the humans out of the garden because they sinned. He kicked Adam out only because the tree of life was now no longer available to him and Adam was in danger of disobeying God and living forever. Notice carefully that it wasn’t the garden that was to be protected from Adam. It was specifically the tree of life. In Genesis 3:22 after God said that Adam may take from the tree of life and live forever, verse 23 starts with “therefore”…

Genesis 3:23 (NASB)
23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

God didn’t say that Adam was kicked out because He was a sinner. He was kicked out for one specific reason and that was because he was a threat to eat from the tree of life. So Eve didn’t have to measure up to a “standard” to stay in the garden. She just couldn’t have a rebellious nature that would make her a threat to eat from the tree of life. Does this make sense?

Finally I have a question of the nature of Eves deception. When Paul in Romans speaks of being deceived He was deceived as to the right way to act to please God. His persecution of Christians was an ill-informed zeal.

Gazza, Paul’s deception was more than just “ill-informed zeal”. His deception involved false doctrine that brought about his actions of sin. Paul’s wrong doctrines brought about blasphemy, violence and persecution of God’s people. Paul tell us in 1 Timothy 1 that the law was meant for evil people who do things that are contrary to “sound teaching”.

1 Timothy 1:8–13 (NASB)
8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
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;

Paul says that he was acting in sin because he was not following sound doctrine but rather he was acting in “unbelief”. When false doctrine is accepted it causes us to break the commandments of God as we follow false human traditions (Matt. 15:3). These false doctrines spoil our minds so that we are so deceived we can think that we are following God when we are actually fighting against God.

Eve here is not deceived in how to please God – she clearly knows she is not to eat the fruit – Eve is deceived into thinking there will be no negative consequences if she does eat the fruit and that it was desirable for gaining wisdom.

I think it goes further than this. Eve believes that there is no real “law” against eating this fruit. She has accepted the false doctrine that eating the fruit is a good thing that has been kept from her and there is no sin in seeking to gain wisdom to be more like God than she already is. Thus when she ate, she was not believing that she was sinning at all. Her previous understanding was not darkened and only the false doctrine taught by the serpent was her “new” truth.

It would seem to me that this deception occurs despite her previously knowing what was right – if you are correct then God Himself had already told her that she would die if she merely touched it. Eve is deceived into trusting a serpent more than God. I can not see any evidence in the text that her motivation was to please God (unlike Paul) rather it is a selfish ambition to be “like God, knowing good and evil.”

The point that Paul makes is that he was acting ignorantly and with unbelief. To say that Paul had not selfish ambitions at all would be overstating the case. After all there is no Scripture that says to kill your Jewish brothers for their particular faith in God. What encouraged Paul to add his own ambition to the point of committing murder?

Yet the real point is not what the exact deception was for both of them, rather it is the fact that both were deceived and they were deceived not because they were wanting to be bad and rebellious people. They were deceived because they believed false doctrine about God. Both then were qualified for mercy because they both sinned in ignorance and in unbelief.

Is it really fair to say that Eves sin was so much less than Adams because she was deceived that she was still entitled to stay in the garden? Surely what she was deceived to believe and do was still an affront to God?

Nothing in the Scriptures say that sin disqualified them from remaining in the garden. And God didn’t say that if you eat of the fruit of this particular tree you will die and I will kick you out of the garden. Being removed from the garden was not a result of sin. It was a result from the continued nature of rebellion. And rebellion is something that is never attributed to Eve. She is said to have been deceived and we know that her deception ended when she understand that she had been lied to. Someone who is no longer deceived and who does not have a nature of rebellion is not a serious threat. If she was, certainly God would have kicked her out to keep her away from the tree of life.

Gazza, I really appreciate your questions. They are well thought-out and come across as being very sincere. I like that. It shows me that you are willing to think these issues through in a non-prejudicial way and to push for answers when the answers given you here seem to contradict the text. I see this as being a real Berean which all of us should strive hard to be. Thanks!

I am always willing to answer questions and to be pushed to prove my points. For if my points do not stand up against the Scripture, they should be dismissed.

Mark,
You said:

I agree with gengwell, Gen 3:16 is not making women doormats. It’s showing her corrupted nature within the marriage.

There is no scripture that lists Eve with a “corrupted nature”. There is nothing in the text that says “corruption”.

Her desire will be to usurp her husbands authority, and his sinful response will be to oppress his wife. Look at what i wrote regarding the grammatical similarities with Gen 4:7.

There is nothing in the text that says “usurp” and her husband would have to have an authority that wasn’t hers to “usurp”. Where did he get such an authority? God didn’t give it to him? Did he take it for himself? Did satan give it to him? Was the authority given to Adam before his wife was created or after? Please fill us in with the “facts”.

Mark,
You said to pinklight:

an over literal position is one like yours which tries to fit everything into a systematic chronology.

In historical literature a literal interpretation is expected since it is history and history is literal. Genesis is the history of beginnings.

A literal approach (my view) is to say it is historical fact, but not try and squeeze everything to fit systematically.

It is all historical fact, but the ordered system will be clear within its defining context. That is what we do to allow the Scripture to interpret itself without contradiction.

Scriptural proof for Eve’s leaving is the semantic range of ‘ha’adam’.

Scriptural proof can never hinge on merely the semantic range. Rather the key way of defining the proper meaning will be the context. If a meaning is within the semantic range this doesn’t mean that it can be correct in the context. The context is king and the context will either allow or disallow any one of the usual “allowable” meanings.

It can mean more than one person. Therefore Gen 3:22ff includes Eve, but the text is addressed to the man as the head.

Just because a meaning is allowed within the semantic range doesn’t mean that it is allowed within a particular context. Mark you have to know this if you are training to be a pastor. The context can limit the application of one of meanings.

gengwall,
You said:

This is actually the point where I differ from most of my egal friends. As Mark has said, there is nothing positive or good in Genesis 3:16b. Just as I can not agree with hard complementarian views that males are the heroes of Genesis 3:16 whose “rule” is simply a godly counter to those evil women and their cunning, sinful, ways, I can also not agree that females are universally the perpetual poor, pitiful, “doormat” victims of those abusive, domineering males. It takes two to tango. I sincerely believe Genesis 3:16b describes how BOTH genders contribute to the breakdown of marriage in this fleshly, sinful world. It contains neither heroes nor martyrs.

I don’t agree either that females are universally the doormat victims of their abusive husbands. But I do think that women “put up” with bad behavior far more than men do. After all in Muslim countries where the women are mistreated and held back, they survive in that abusive environment with an incredible amount of patience yet having a desire to be free from the control. Women seem to be the strong ones who are able to carry on in almost any circumstance.

Lin,
You said:

I have disagreed with Cheryl on several things but not on the essentials.

I am glad that you brought this up. For some reason Mark seems to think that if egals disagree on any issue, then the egal position doesn’t hold any water. That is certainly not true. We can disagree on the non-essentials and we can learn from each other for surely we all understand that no one is 100% right.

Mark also seems to think that no one is allowed to disagree with me on this blog. That is also far from the truth. This blog is a place where we can share our opinions and the things that we have learned and we can passionately debate our own views. There have been quite a few differences here that have been aired. There is nothing wrong with that. If someone shows me where my view is legitimately wrong, I can check their rebuttal against the Scriptures and if the Scripture does indeed affirm their position, I have the opportunity to change. We all can do this and this is the place to debate these matters in a respectful and brotherly way. No one needs to feel rejected even if their view isn’t accepted. The more information that is given for us to check against the measuring stick of God’s word, the better for all of us. Disagreement will always be welcomed as long as it is respectful and the issues are the things that are debated and focused on, not personal attacks.

I sure appreciate that you have felt free to disagree agreeably. 🙂

The last one for tonight.
Mark, you said:

happy reading…sorry it is so long, but the issue needed a substantial response

I am glad you tried. It was substantial in length for sure. I am also hopeful that we will continue to interact for some time. Talk to you later.

Cheryl

Ah, I think I am finally coming to the end of Mark’s challenges. Mark, you wrote:

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.

Here you go:

Leviticus 4:1–2 (NASB)1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
2 “Speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘If a person sins unintentionally in any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, and commits any of them,

There are also 2nd and 3rd witnesses and more at: Lev. 4:22, 27; 5:15, 22, 24, Ezekiel 45:20.

Now it would be good for you to prove that there are not differences in sins and that God does not judge between one sin and another. Go ahead.

Paul makes it clear in Romans that no one seeks God (Rom 3:11), no one does good, not even one (Rom 3:12).

This is a Calvinist argument and I will deal with that in my DVD on the Sovereignty of God. Suffice it to say that many were called righteous including Job and Abraham who feared God and shunned evil.

However let’s deal on this blog with the issue of women in ministry. As the blog marm I want to keep us from going off topic.

There is no evidence that Eve had a sin nature that kept her sinning against God. God didn’t say that the tree of life was in danger of Eve’s rebellious will to eat from what is now forbidden her. Without any evidence of a sin nature, and since Eve could not possibly inherit a sin nature from Adam, you cannot assume another position without a single piece of evidence concerning Eve herself instead of using Adam’s offspring who are indeed sinful.

Cheryl has given Eve a sin nature that is contrary to scripture by insisting that she was not a ‘threat’.

Again you misrepresent me. I didn’t say that Eve had a “sin nature” and that is not my position, I couldn’t give her a sin nature that is contrary to scripture.

She must therefore be considered in the same way as all people-sinful and therefore included in the banishment.

All people are from Adam after he sinned. Eve is not so to give her a equal sin nature like all sinful people has not been proven. Please show me from the text where Eve’s sin nature is shown.

The fact that the new testament talks about sin coming though Adam not Eve (Rom 5:12ff) confirms the Gen account that Adams headship makes him the responsible party of the fall.

Again you forget that this is an assertion and you have given no proof of a “headship” of one ruler over another. Also Adam was certainly not the only one help responsible for the fall. The serpent was also held responsible for what he did he was cursed because of this. If Adam was a sole ruler of the earth, then he alone would have been responsible. But remember there were two deliberate sinners that were dealt with by God.

Eve was banished from the garden, she did not simply ‘follow’ her husband.

Here again you are assuming your position. I have admitted that the Scripture does not definitively say why Eve left, but I used God’s words as a good reason for why she left. You just say that she was banished without a single piece of evidence.

On top of that most scholars actually see the banishment as a sign of grace. Had God allowed them to eat of the tree of life, they would have eternally stayed in a state of sin. Thanks be to God that we are freed from the bondage of sin through Christ.

We are not freed from the bondage of sin by our death. We are freed from the bondage of sin by Christ’s death. I can’t believe that you got this one wrong.

Final thoughts
Cheryl’s understanding of Gen 3 has many flaws. It assumes a conversation between Eve and God that is not recorded nor can be confirmed grammatically.

The only way that you can say this is to completely ignore Eve’s testimony yet you give no reason why her testimony given before the fall should be considered as an untruthful statement.

It paints Eve’s sin nature as not serious.

We can all agree that she sinned by falling into the transgression through deception, but to add a sin nature to her when the Scripture is silent on this matter is going beyond what has been given us.

It distorts the true meaning of the punishment of Eve and her desire against her husband.

There is no other punishment for Eve other than of death which God said would happen. You have also not proved that Eve heart had things against her husband when the text is silent on this too.

But most importantly it attempts to prove that Eve was not banished from the garden. However under scrutiny the view does not hold.

Well who is the one who has scrutinized my view and found that it does not hold? I would like to meet them. You have not proved any such thing so you will need some help.

The historical position of the church holds.

There is lots that the church got wrong. The true test is not the “historical position of the church” but Scripture in context. No other test is the standard by which truth is measured.

Adam’s headship is re-affirmed, no doubt to the disgust of Evangelical Feminists.

You have not proven any such thing so no one here needs to have any such disgust regarding provable truth. You have some work to do.

But we must be faithful to the bible and do proper exegesis not eisegesis.

You have done only eisegesis through your arguments. Honestly I have changed many times when I have seen that I have been wrong. But you haven’t used Scripture in a way to prove me wrong. When you change the the earthy man to be a man and a woman, you just lost me. These kinds of arguments will never stand up in a real debate. They are extremely troublesome as they attack the uniqueness of the last Adam in opposition to the first rebellious man and that rebellious man alone.

The ‘Woman in Ministry’ blog fails to accurately exegete Gen 1-3 and as a result comes to wrong and unbiblical conclusions about the banishment of Eve from the garden.

That’s wishful thinking. If you are indeed successful at “proving” my “unbiblical” exegesis, then there will be something for all of us to learn.

Truth is provable and will stand the test. Keep trying Mark, because truth is worth working hard to gain. If you lay aside your traditions and come to the text without your presuppositions, I am confident that you can at least understand the egalitarian position that I hold instead of just misrepresenting it. It is going to take a little bit more of actually listening and engaging the argument first.

Mark,
You said:

4. Not only that, the reverse can be equally true, namely that when ‘adam’ is used without the definite article it can be used to refer to one man as opposed to the anarthrous use, when it generic..

What has that got to do with the grammar at hand? I absolutely agree that “man” can refer to one man and in fact you will recall my argument that “man” and “woman” is not generic but referring to one man and one woman. Perhaps you are now arguing my own viewpoint, eh? Well, okay. Keep up the good work. We may be in agreement sooner than later 😉

Cheryl’s attempt to prove that the definite article used in ‘the man’ of Gen 3:22ff, has to mean that only Adam is refereed to is wrong.

Well you will actually have to prove it wrong instead of just asserting it to be so. It takes real work to refute a position. I do appreciate that you took a long time to prepare this tome. This says to me that you are serious in your studies and you are not wanting to run away as so many others have. That persistence is a wonderful character trait in a Christian. But you will need more work so that you can avoid the tendency toward using logical fallacies as an argument.

Therefore both are excluded from the garden, and the use of the definite article further highlights the headship of Adam over Eve.

There has been no “headship” proven of one ruler over another. So now are you saying that every time the term “the man” is used, then that one is now the head of all other men? Great imagination. I am wondering if these are your own ideas or if you got them from another theologian. And if the term “the man” proves a headship of one man over another one is a unique argument we are supposed to take your suggestion and reject any argument that is unique? I am quite interested to know if your assertions are to be submitted under your own “rules”? Or are comp arguments exempt?

Mark,
You said:

3. The opinion that ‘ha’adam’ must refer to the man alone is not supported by the bible either. For example in Gen 1:27 we read “So God created (the) man in his own image…male and female he created them.” The definite article is included here in the Hebrew yet the intended meaning of the passage is indisputably generic-male and female.

The first reference is to one man and the second reference is to both male and female. This Scripture doesn’t say that the singular is plural, but that God not just the first male but male and female.

Again we have the same issue in Gen 6:1 “When (the) man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to THEM…” Again clearly here the construct ‘ha’adam’ is generic.

The problem for you Mark is that you don’t get it. I have already agreed that there are some very rare instances where ‘ha’adam’ can mean the whole human race. However it is up to you to prove from the context where it is not only clear that ‘ha’adam’ means all of humanity (Adam and Eve) but that it is impossible for it to be anything else. Other wise your point has no validity.

Therefore the conclusion of Cheryl that the definite article has to only refer to the one man is false.

Mark, please stop misrepresenting me. I didn’t say that. What I said was that in the context of Genesis 3 in this text it cannot mean anything but one man. Will you please stop misquoting me and admit that I am talking about this specific text that is the basis of my argument. It does your point no good to find one of several uncommon usages of ‘ha’adam’. Your argument can only be argued when you prove your point from the text at hand.

Therefore to conclude that Gen 3:22ff can only refer to Adam is simply false.

I have given you proof from the text why it can only mean one man. You have not addressed my argument to remove it as valid. What you have done is to assume your position and then argue from your assumptions and not from the text.

It is equally possible grammatically that both Adam and Eve are included in the banishment. This is in fact the historical position of the church, supported by Hebrew grammar.

Oh, are you really now admitting that my view is not impossible? Well how about that? Or do you mean something by “equally possible grammatically” to not allow my view the light of day? Common now, ‘fess up. Are you now saying that my view is equally valid as your own view?

Mark, you said:

2. The preceding passage already shows Adams headship. He was created first, Eve was created from and for Adam.

First doesn’t make one the ultimate ruler. David was not first. And Adam could not usurp Eve’s rulership unless God specifically gave Adam as Eve’s ruler. You admit that Genesis 3:16 is not God giving that authority to Adam, so you are still left with nothing. This is a sad position to be in as a complementarian.

Adam was the only one given the prohibition.

This is not true. Eve gives her testimony that the prohibition was given to them (you as plural). You also admitted in one of your responses that God could have given it to both of them, so your assertion now is without a basis to stand on.

Adam names his wife.

God creates her as woman first. We have already gone over this and since you have not been successful at contradicting my position (begging the question), it does not good to just list these issues again. Either prove your point or admit that you have some issues that you need to think through.

Adam is addressed by God first after the fall,

Are you sure? According to your own reasoning, this “the Adam” could mean Adam and Eve. The fact that you are so sure now that this is just the man seems to show that you weren’t really serious that any case of ‘ha’adam’ can mean more than one person. That’s a big problem for you, Marki.

and Adam renames his wife after the fall.

What has the post-fall got to do with God’s design?

All this indicates Adam’s headship over Eve therefore the reference to ha-‘adam only further emphasises his headship.

You have yet to prove a “headship” of one ruler over the other ruler. If you had a proof, I would have thought you could have brought it out by now. This may be time for you to rethink your position as the true view can stand up to the challenge and answer from the text without begging the question.

Adam is held as the primary responsibility.

God judges between motive. Deliberate sin is not the same as unintentional sin. I haven’t seen your answer to this yet. Do you have one?

IN fact the NT clearly teaches the fall of humanity relies on Adam’s shoulders not on Eve’s.

Yeah! We agree!! There is no inherited sin that comes into the world since she never sinned in rebellion. To make their action of sin on the same level is to ignore God’s words about Adam’s treachery and to ignore the fact that there are sins that are more culpable. I would like to have you address this.

Now concerning Mark’s further comments about my “wrong” conclusions:

Cheryl believes that the definite article makes it impossible to assume that Eve was banished, but there are a few wrong conclusions here.

1. Let’s begin first with an egalitarian so that this point is not pointed to comps only. Again the egalitarian rebuttal book ‘Discovering Biblical Equality’ is helpful. Richard Hass said “Cast out from the presence of God and the opportunity to worship God at all times, man and woman would now have to fill their time with labour to meet life’s basic needs…”. So that it appears again that egalitarians are not even united on this point. In fact, Mr Hass does not even deal with the fact that the passage is dealing with ‘the man’.

You mean Mr. Hess? Again he is going with the standard comp exegesis of this passage. Not all egalitarians get this part right because we haven’t been forced to rethink the position. This is why I am asking comps and egals alike to rethink what the text actually says instead of just accepting tradition.

It seems that the view that only Adam was banished is unique to Cheryl’s blog, and therefore must carefully be watched.

It would be pretty hard to prove that my view is unique. However let’s suppose for argument sake that this is true. Does this make the argument false? Or is the argument false when it is proven so from the passage? Truth will always stand the test and a false view cannot stand the test. I am very willing to put my view to the test. Unfortunately you have not yet done any damage to the view, but you have done a fair bit of damage to the teaching that Jesus is the last Adam and not the last Adam or Eve. I can hardly believe the consequences of your view and I honestly don’t think that you have thought this one through for it touches Jesus unique position in conjunction to the first earthly man.

Now concerning Mark’s answers about Eve not being banished from the garden.
Mark, you said:

1. First of all, we need to remember that this verse is within the corpus of punishment and curse. Therefore to assume that anything in these verses is ‘positive’ neglects the context. I say this to comps as well, since some believe that this verse is a remedy to the fall (that the husband shall rule over wives). This is wrong. This is a judgment on Eve and Adam therefore nothing here should be considered positive. Eve’s desire is not positive, nor is the husbands rule.

There is no judgment at all. For a judgment God has to say “I will…(do this)” or “cursed is…” but no judgment can be brought by the phrase “you will…” Please prove the judgment since you are once again assuming it.

Secondly the woman’s desire can be looked on as good and bad depending on whose eyes the actions are viewed through. For the man her desire is a good thing. But for God her desire if it is putting him first before Him, then it can be a bad thing. God is meant to be first in our lives. But certainly there is no ill-will meant in the passage. What ill-will does the woman hold? The passage doesn’t say that her desire is against the man. Since the word can be used as a bad thing if “sin” is doing it and can be a good thing if a “lover” is doing it, it cannot be assumed that it is bad unless the text says that she has bad motives or thoughts toward him.

The next thing that hasn’t been dealt with yet is that the grammar attaches her pain in childbearing with her desire for the man. Please explain how these two are connected together in your view?

2. The above translation does not correctly translate the ‘ ‘el’ or ‘for’ your husband. It is true that the preposition here could translate as ‘for’ or ‘to’ but I think the best translation which fits the context should be ‘against’. Therefore the text should read “your desire shall be against your husband.”

In the Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon, the main 3 meanings of this word have to do with a direction towards anything. The only negative meaning has to have a context to be of a hostile character. What words would “el” link to in the context that would provide the evidence of a “hostile character”? You cannot just use the word alone. There has to be evidence of hostility. Please provide your evidence of a “hostile character” from the text. I will be awaiting your answer.

The reason I believe this is simple. There are only 2 occurrences of this precise construction, that is ‘desire’ (teshuqah) with ‘’el’ as well as with the rest of the verse with the ‘rule’ of husband…Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

The problem that you have with this example is that the hostile character is clear and evident in Gen. 4:7. The hostile one is “sin”. Now please prove what the hostile character is in Genesis 3:16. I see no hostile character at all and so I am very interested in what you are going to answer for this dilemma.

Therefore the preposition in 3:16 would be better translated as against (which is of course one of its many meanings) since the intention is the same. Eve’s desire will be against her husband (namely trying to dominate him) but he will rule (lord over negatively) her.

The passage says nothing about the woman “dominating” the man. That is an addition to the text for sure. You need to try again.

And just to clarify my view of Genesis 3:16…Eve is not the same as every other woman. We are all the offspring of Adam after he sinned and we all have inherited his sin nature. Eve did not inherit his sin nature, so any negative reactions of wives does not necessarily reflect back to the the mother of the living. Some women do live out their sin nature by trying to dominate their children, their friends, their husband and anything else in their path. This is not a trait of women in general, but it is a trait of the sin nature. Yet the general nature of women is not domination of men but the desire to be free from domination.

Since again the context is in the middle of punishment this is the intended meaning of the verse. With sin, Adam and Eve’s relationship is destroyed.

There is no additional “punishment” given to Eve nor is anything cursed on her behalf. I have not seen any answer of yours to this problem. Do you have an answer? If I missed seeing it, please point me to your reasoning from the Scriptures on the issue of punishment/curses that involve only two sinners and not the woman.

She will try to usurp his authority and he will lord it over her. It is a complete corruption of the original design.

The problem is that once again you are begging the question. You are assuming that God gave the man an authority over the woman when you have given nothing to prove such a claim. She cannot “usurp” an authority that God never gave him. And the original design is not authority/submission but authority/authority. Please prove your case instead of assuming it.

Again Cheryl’s view conflicts with mainstream egalitarianism. Richard Hass agrees on this particular meaning for verse 16- quote “Susan Foh suggests that woman’s desire here is not a sexual desire but a desire to dominate, just as sin has a ‘desire’ to ‘rule over’ Cain (Gen 4:7).

Do you mean Richard Hess?

This is the “tradition” that has come from years of comp exegesis, but as I pointed out above, a negative desire cannot be proven from the text without a hostile character. Eve is not shown as a hostile character.

Applying the basic hermeneutical principle of translating an expression in one context by the same expression in a nearby and related context…Foh seems to have gotten it right…” (pg 92 Discovering Biblical Equality).

Richard Hess and Susan Foh are following the tradition comp interpretation and I haven’t seen them prove a hostile character in this passage. Have you?

It is not good enough for Cheryl to use 3:16 as her proof text for why Eve left the garden. In fact it has nothing to do with the sort. Verse 16 is a punishment and prophecy of the woman. Rather than a perfect relationship, she will now desire against her husband- to dominate him.

Verse 16 does not qualify as a proof of a punishment for Eve. And the only domination in the verse is Adam’s rule over her. Do you have any other verses that gives a second witness to the hostile character of Eve?

Okay to carry on from Mark original points:

3. Also there is a grammatical problem with Cheryl’s view. When Eve quotes what God said the ‘You’ is plural right through verses 1-5. For example the serpent said “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat…” Eve replies verse 3 “but God did say, You shall not eat…”
   The ‘you’ is plural consistent throughout. Therefore if Cheryl wishes to be consistent, God’s ‘new’ prohibition that is given (which is not recorded) is given to both Adam and Eve, not just Eve.

I think this point has been covered previously, but I will repeat just so that you actually can understand my point, Mark. I didn’t say that the “new” information was given to just Eve. In fact because she uses the plural proves that it was given to both of them. Therefore your claim that there is a grammatical problem with my claim just shows that you weren’t paying attention. The grammar actually supports my claims. Do you understand now?

4 The omission of Yahweh in verse 1-5. Chapter 1 of Gen uses the name ‘Elohim’ for God as he created the world. In chapter 2, though we read LORD God (yhwh elohim). Why is this? This name is used consistently through chapter 2 and 3, except in the verses between the serpent and Eve.

This is a point I have already talked to you about. Argue your points in another forum as I won’t waste blog space on this issue. This is taking us away from the area of women in ministry. And seeing the way you can change the “one created from the earth” into the woman, I think you have taken away credibility from your ability to do exegesis on other areas. So drop it and let’s stay on topic.

5. There is nothing in Gen 3 to make us think that Eve’s sin nature was different to Adam’s as some on this blog would like to suggest.

There is nothing in the text or in the rest of the Scriptures that says that Eve inherited a sin nature from Adam. There is also nothing in the text or the rest of the Scriptures that says that Eve had the sin nature of rebellion. Let’s continue to evaluate your position:

In fact, the opposite is true. We are told that ‘both’ their eyes were open (3:7).

Having their eyes opened has nothing to do with sin nature. It has to do with their nakedness and the sense of shame that they felt. I am continually amazed at the weakness of your argument. How you can connect “their eyes were open” to a sin nature is beyond me.

They ‘both’ sewed fig leaves together in an attempt to hide their shame and nakedness (3:7).

Yah, so? What is your point? I am the one arguing that hiding has to do with shame and not concerning a sin nature in both.

They ‘both’ hid from God in the garden after the fall (3:8).

How does the shame of sin reflect a sin nature on both? The fact is that Eve sinned through deception. She also had to experience shame because she sinned. But to say that she had the same sin nature of rebellion is adding into the Scriptures.

All of these actions which of course are a result of sin now entering the world are administered both by the man and the woman. The woman’s sinful nature responds exactly the way the man’s does.

Again this is begging the question. You are assuming what you have failed to prove. We both agree that both sinned. But one sin does not make a sin nature of rebellion that all of us have inherited from Adam.

Both ate from the tree which was prohibited, therefore both rejected the supremacy of God and his law.

Again you are adding to the text. The Bible says that Eve was deceived. She was not rejecting “the supremacy of God” since she no longer believed that there was a law to follow. She was deceived.

Although Eve was lured into sinning, the result is the same, rejection of God’s command and subsequent punishment.

Oh, really? Then why was nothing cursed on Eve’s behalf? Why did God not say “Because you have done this…cursed is…”? just as He did with the two who sinned deliberately? To say that the result is “the same” is amazing. How is it the same from God’s words to them both after they both sinned?

It is also important to note that the promised punishment for eating (death) is applied to both Adam and Eve. She is equally culpable before the Holy God.

This has nothing to do with a sin nature. After all God told them both (remember that) that they would both die if they ate of the fruit. This is Eve’s testimony. But the subsequent consequences after the fact are not the same. Why?

So Mark you have failed to consider the curse on the earth on the man’s behalf. You are only looking at the death that came to both that was promised before sin entered the world through man. You have failed to explain this from the text choosing to appeal to the assumed conclusion without proving your conclusion. Not allowed my friend. You will have to try harder.

Mark,
You said:

When have i said that ‘ha’adam’ has to ‘always’ mean more than one person. You have assumed this about me. But i have clearly said semantically that it ‘can’ mean more than one person.

I didn’t say you said “always”. You are now putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that ‘ha’adam’ can mean the whole human race but it is a rare occurrence in the Scriptures. The context must affirm that the whole human race is in view. The problem that you have is that if you are claiming that ‘ha’adam’ can mean more than one person in Genesis 3 then any occurence of ‘ha’adam’ is in question. What makes Genesis 3:9 referring just to the man? Please do answer me. The fact is that we can go through each occurrence and prove that ‘ha’adam’ is referring to the male alone. It is up to you to prove that any of these occurrences can refer to the human race. You have not been successful in doing that.

Your conclusion to say that i therefore have to translate every use of it as more than one person is just ridiculous.

No I didn’t say that. What I said is that if you insist that ‘ha’adam’ being kicked out of the garden must mean not just the man but all of humanity (meaning the man and the woman in this case) then you will have to be prepared to defend every other case of ‘ha’adam’ in the passage and show why these references also cannot refer to both the man and the woman. Shall we go there?

You obviously are not reading what i wrote, nor understanding the actual possibilities of the meaning of the word with the definite article.

I am reading what you wrote. You are the one who is adding words to what I wrote. Why do you do that?

I have already said that ‘ha’adam’ can mean all of humanity, but that meaning is such a rare occurrence that one must prove the meaning from the passage since the normal meaning is always of one person. Do you deny this?

Where did Eve return to? Adam’s rib? It is obviously meant to be understood generically, since both Adam and Eve did die and returned to the earth (technically Eve is made from the earth anyway).

No, this is not true. “Technically” Eve is not made from the earth. She is made from Adam and this is what Scripture argues in Paul’s writing. Never once is she said to be from the ground as well as from Adam. Adam is the only one who is “from” the earth. If you say that Eve is from the earth then the picture back to Adam from the first “earthy” man is lost and thus the picture of the last Adam is lost.

1 Corinthians 15:47–48 (NASB)
47 The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.

So are you now saying that the “earthy” includes Eve?

The fact is that Genesis 3:19, 23-24 cannot be anything other than the male.

Genesis 3:19–24 (NASB)
19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.
24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.

The terms “from it (the ground) you were taken and “to cultivate the ground from which he was taken” can only refer back to the first man. She was not taken from the ground and to claim that the woman was taken from the ground is to deny the Genesis account. If you have to go this far to defend your point of view, it really does come across as if you are pulling at straws to keep a position that is impossible to hold from the inspired text. If this kind of exegesis is okay for you to do, then I could claim that anytime Adam is referred to that Eve is also referred to. Would that be fair? And if not, why not?

So nothing in Gen 3:22ff excludes Eve-the opposite really. It is only your misunderstanding of ‘ha’adam’ that has lead to your wrong conclusion.

I don’t have a misunderstanding. I just am really wondering why you feel free to give anyone the permission to dismiss the link between one male “Adam” and Christ? For if you continue to hold that adding Eve to the text is allowed, when references to the first earthy man is so clear, then what reason would you have to stop anyone from adding Eve into any text referring to just Adam? You would have a hope to prove that they were wrong with your own additions.

You see this is why the comp position is untenable. It not only must read into the Scriptures, but it must distort the clear passages about the earthy man to add in the woman when Scripture is clear that there is only one earthy man.

1 Corinthians 15:22 (NASB) For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

So is it in “Adam and Eve” that all die? Can’t anyone just arbitrarily replace Adam here with Adam and Eve? If you can, why can’t someone else?

1 Corinthians 15:49 (NASB)
49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

So is it the image of the man and the woman? Is that what the meaning of “earthy” is? If not, then why not? If you can change Adam’s creation from the earth to include both the man and the woman, then anyone else can noodle with the text and add her into “Adam” “earthy” anytime they wish, right? Don’t you see that by this kind of claim you have taken a turn towards the removal of any understandable meaning of the Scriptures.

‘ha’adam’ is used becasue of Adam’s headship-plain and simple

Once again you are assuming the point that you are trying to prove. This is a logical fallacy called “begging the question”. It is not allowed in a valid argument.

I can see that you are really trying, but while you are trying, I am sure that there are many who can see that you are changing the text to make it fit your presuppositions.

We also know that both became like God knowing good and evil, since this is what is indicated about eating the fruit before the fall. And we are told that both their eyes are open.

This is simply not true. This is what the serpent said that they would be like God when they ate. But the truth from the text is that they were already like God – they were made in His image. Adam already knew good and evil since he was not deceived. He did not become more like God when he ate. He became less like God since he had now not just the knowledge of good and evil (which he had before) but he experienced evil. The grammar of the passage does not have God saying that man became like God at the eating of the fruit, but he was like God in his creation and the “but now…” shows that the “now” condition is not Godlike. As I have answered in another post, satan is the father of lies and he cannot tell the truth. This is what Jesus said so the serpent and God cannot be saying the same thing. One of them is lying and I accept that it is the serpent who lied.

Well unfortunately I don’t have time for more right now as I have to go for my appointments and likely won’t be back on line until late tonight. The internet connection again this morning was almost impossible to connect to. It is very frustrating to me, but that is something I have to live with when away from the office.

Take care guys and Mark 😉 have fun battling any of these matters out and I’ll connect later.

Mark,
You said:

Actually as I said grammatically ‘ha’adam’ can be used to refer to more than one person. Therefore this is scriptural proof for why she left. She is included in ‘ha’adam’.

Then must also have been included in ‘ha’adam’ in verse 9 too? How do you answer that?

While ‘ha’adam’ can be all humans in special cases, the context is clear that this is not the case in the account of creation. In Genesis 3:17 ‘ha’adam’ is clearly only one person since ‘his wife’ is also referenced and ‘ha’adam’ is said in verse 19 to go back to the ground that he was taken from. Only one person was taken from the ground. Then in verse 23 once again the man is said to be sent out so that he could work the ground that “he was taken from”. This removes any confusion that ‘ha’adam’ could mean Eve.

It is only a very few specific cases where ‘ha’adam’ can possibly be the who human race and the context will clearly define that for us. The context of the creation and fall makes it clear that ‘ha’adam’ is only Adam. If you are not willing to see that you have a huge problem. It seems to me that your position is that God came to the male alone showing that Adam was head, but if ‘ha’adam’ means both of them, then God didn’t go just to the male alone did He?

The fact is that throughout the creation account ‘ha’adam’ is continually referred to for the one man – the male Adam. We would expect to find this since the normal use of ‘ha’adam’ is a specific person. And when Adam was kicked out it is extremely specific unless you are going to say that the singular pronoun now refers to plural people and “the ground from which he was taken” refutes the fact that Eve was not taken from the ground. And if you can take the very specific ‘ha’adam’ with its singular pronoun and its specific ground from which he (singular) was taken and make this refer to both of them, then you had better be prepared to make every single ‘ha’adam’ refer to both of them throughout the creation account. Are you really willing to do this?

Mark,

You said:

Did she or did she not disobey God’s prohibition?(3:6) This is sin. Now after her sin, did she react any differently to Adam who also sinned? This is the same nature, rebellion to God. Pretty good scriptural evidence I would think. How do you reconcile the way Eve behaves after her sin?

The Bible says that she fell into sin through deception. This means that she did indeed sin but she did not sin in rebellion which is sinning with full intention. The Bible talks about sinning with rebellion and then there is sinning unintentionally. There is a sacrifice specifically given for unintentional sin. Are you really unaware of unintentional sin and think that all sin is rebellion? Do a check in the Scriptures and see for yourself.

How do we reconcile with the way that Eve behaves after her sin? Her hiding is not rebellion but shame. Shame follows sin when you become aware of your sin. It doesn’t matter why you sin, sin is shameful.

The Jewish practice was to cover up during prayer and worship because of the shame of their sin. Sin always looks to be covered up.

Now I am asking you again to show that Eve was guilty of rebellion. If you don’t even understand that there is a difference in sin and defined by God through the OT, how will you understand the difference between one who sins in rebellion and then brings that rebellion through to his offspring and one who has no rebellion but sins because she has fallen into transgression through deception?

Mark,
You said:

No doubt though, that it was the serpents trickery that led her to that point. We just must be careful to exclude Eve from any involvement in the account, and therefore come to the conclusion that Eve is innocent. She was deceived but she is guilty of desiring wisdom which was not for her. She acted against God’s command and took the fruit.

I agree that Eve fell into sin through deception. I don’t think that anyone has said that after she was deceived that she was “innocent”. The question is how can you impeach her for quoting God in error or lying about what God said when the serpent did not tempt her to lie about her own testimony? Assuming your position without considering God’s view of the supposed “sin” before Eve was deceived will not convince someone like me who carefully looks at the text for the inspired evidence.

That’s about all I can do tonight. I am gone pretty much all of tomorrow so will get back to your answers as I can.

I appreciate your challenge as those who read my blog can decide for themselves who is looking at the evidence from the text and who is assuming their position by assuming what is not said.

Thanks for trying Mark, will get back to you shortly.

Mark,
You said:

It is not only comps who believe that Adam must have reported the prohibition to Eve.

That is because this is the tradition that has been passed on by comps. When egals are given the evidence they are free to reject the tradition.

2. The narrative also shows Eve’s ‘desire’ to become wise (Gen 3:6). The word here desire is the same that is used in the Ten commandments- translated do not ‘covet’(Ex 20:17). This is not a ‘good’ thing. Her desire for the fruit is negative showing her rejection of God’s truth.

The desire for wisdom is not negative unless one goes outside of God’s way. The context shows that she has become deceived and a word is to be defined by the context. We will evaluate the context of the other “desire” shortly.