tiro,

Or we could say that Eve’s conception was GREATLY increased after the fall. Many speculate that they were in the garden for a year or so. That is possible. I don’t think that it was only just a day, but that is also possible.

gengwall,

Yes there were likely more children born to Adam and Eve between Abel and Seth that is why I said that Seth is the 3rd named son. It does appear that he is the first son that Eve gave birth to after Abel died. Of course we can also understand that A & E’s children were having children of their own during this time too. The bible is silent on the amount of time that Adam and Eve were in the garden. The only clues we have are that there was no pregnancy in the garden, no children born in the garden and Adam was 130 years old when a replacement for Abel was born. I guess we will have to ask Eve when we get to heaven 🙂

Kerryn,

I think that we assume that Adam and Eve were in the garden for an extended period of time since the third son of Adam that is named in scripture was born when Adam was 130 years old.

Gen 5:3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth.

Seth was a son who was said by Eve to be a replacement given by God for Abel who was killed by Cain. The fact that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old and appears to be the first son born after the death of Abel seems to suggest that Adam and Eve were in the garden for years rather than days or weeks.

gengwall,
Excellent comments about roles!

Arlene,
Your comments are incredibly insightful and well said. You are right. If God had an order of creation “role” that could not be broken, then the command to keep the “roles” would have been said. God did not command these things to either the man or the woman and God did not call them to account for a reversal of the “roles”. Such an application of Genesis is reading into the account something that is not there.

Kathleen,
It would have been a hard thing for Eve to hear especially since God told her that her special partner and mate would turn on her and treat her very badly. She didn’t even have any lady friends to confide in so I am sure that she felt very alone.

57 Gengwall,

I have seen some pretty wild interpretations of Genesis 3:16b in my day. Frankly, the one by Ortlund, while oppressive to women, is not the worst of its kind. But I do want to point out that conservative males are not universally in the patriarchal camp, nor are all egalitarian ideas necessarily “liberal” (at least not in fact, although they are to patriarchal thinkers).

This is good to remember. It is sometimes easy to want to put people into boxes. Creating boxes where we can place people in is just an easy way to dismiss them and not give their view the time of day. Thanks for reminding us that there are no one-size-fits-all boxes even in the patriarchal camp.

I don’t know if you are familiar with Dr. Robert Lewis. He is pastor at large of Fellowship Bible Church in Little Rock. </blockquote
No I am not familiar with Dr. Lewis or his teachings.

You may find it interesting what his views are on Genesis 3 (I know this because I have attended his Men’s Fraternity bible studies for the last 4 years). You will be happy to learn that he holds a similar view to Cheryl’s “Unfaithful Watchman” in regards to Adam’s dismal performance in the garden.

I like this guy already!

He has little regard for patriarchy, calling its promotion a “moral failure” on the part of men.

This is very refreshing coming from the conservative man camp.

Take heart ladies – not every “conservative”, and dare I say not even every “patriarch” (we should explore that word some time), is a woman oppressing, wife dominating fiend.

We should explore what good there is in “patriarch” vs “patriarchy”. I will bookmark that thought in my mind.

53 Lin,

I am writing from personal experience so please do not think I am being uncharitable. I am only speaking what I saw.

I absolutely do not see you as uncharitable!

But, I have a question that I saw someone pose on another blog that has just intrigued me for days. If they really believe these gender roles and in biblical womanhood and separate the two so much in all terms, even spiritual, then how can women be Christlike since Christ came in human male form?

I would really like to hear the thoughts of others? What Lin has posed is an excellent question.

48 Gengwall, very good points!

49 Cindy K, thanks for bringing up the foundation of the “sex is evil” belief. I do think that our misunderstanding of what happened when God confronted Eve lends itself to the misunderstanding about sex. There are a lot of people who still think that sex wasn’t the original good creation and only came after sin entered the world. We need to dispel this myth.

You said:

My first sexual experience was one of violation and was sick, but I never tagged sex as sick in my head.

Praise God that you were not destroyed for life by that terrible experience!

And that’s something that I fear so much about these gender teachings. They make anything gender oriented either evil or a sacrament. They are neither.

Amen! The teachings of “biblical manhood” and “biblical womanhood” seem to suggest that we cannot follow Christ in the same way. They suggest that our faith must be lived out in a way that is tied to our gender and so it appears that somehow women have lost out in being as good a Christian example since Jesus was male and only males could then live out the gendered example of Jesus. This is hogwash. It seems to me that this is what separates us in the body when we think that our spirituality is gender specific. Are the fruits of the spirit gendered?

With sin came the consequences: painful childbirth, but still not a disease but a promise of hope and blessing.

I liked how you brought hope and blessing out of this rather than discipline and God’s turning his back on women. This is the way that I read scripture as well. Good job!

47 Lin,

You said:

Did it ever occur to us that by women turing to man instead of God and being dominated by man that she then became a sex object? Good only for having sex and babies in the eyes of many throughout history? We see how this thinking has progressed throughout history into porn and sex being preached in the pulpits. Now, we even have John Piper defining what is beauty in a woman as in gentle and quiet as if these are not qualities for a man, too.

This is an excellent point! Woman in the garden was not a “sex object” and marital unity would have included an intimate relationship in all areas. It wasn’t until after the fall that sex was taken outside of the emotional/spiritual intimacy.

46 Charis,

I feel frustrated at having to keep repeating myself.

I am truly sorry for your frustration. I personally do not mean to offend you in any way and I can also sense your frustration. I do admit that I may not fully understand what you are getting at, but I also think that you may be misunderstanding me and reading into my writing more than I am saying. I sense that this is because you are deeply wounded and this is an area that you need to protect from receiving further wounding. Please believe me that I am not trying to hurt you or rub salt into any wound that you may have.

Its like you are seeing this in 3D and I see it in 4D. There is another dimension in the Garden that we DON’T HAVE ANYMORE.

Okay. I understand that you are trying to tell me that I am not seeing another dimension that you clearly see in Genesis. May I ask some questions to help me understand? If there is another dimension of marriage in the garden that we no longer have access to, how can we relate to that since we do not have access to it? How can we understand from the text that they had something different in marriage than what the best marriage here on earth does not have? Is this a feeling? Or is there something specific in the text that I have missed?

The man was NOT frustrated before the Fall.

Okay. So if I understand you right, the man had all the sexual desires of a normal male (since his desire was not increased after the fall) and the woman had much less desires than now, but the emotional/friendship/spiritual intimacy was good enough to replace sexuality and somehow made the intimacy they had impacted him enough so that he needed less sex than he needed after the fall. Is this what you mean? If this is so, is there anything in the text that would allow us to see that sexuality was not a healthy physical need in the garden but that friendship and the perfection of the garden were enough to satisfy everything that was needed? Also would it be reasonable to expect that God would not comment about the details about Adam and Eve’s private sexual lives either pre or post-fall? Would it also be reasonable to expect that Adam and Eve had more sexual encounters than the couple of times mentioned in scripture that resulted in a couple of noteworthy births? I think that it would be reasonable that the absence of the number of times per day/week/month/year that they had marital relations would not be expected to be in the biblical account to prove that they were a “normal” married couple both pre and post-fall.

Charis, I am not relating this to your experiences at all. I am not implying that you are not “normal” or that you are expected to be a one-sided giver and your husband a one-sided taker.

The intimacy they had was satisfying FAR BEYOND anything mere sex offered.

I happen to think that this quote is exactly what we will experience in heaven because in heaven we will not be married or given in marriage. But I just don’t see where you get this information from in the Genesis account regarding Adam and Eve’s relationship. It seems to me that you may be implying that the closer a couple gets to a perfect intimate relationship on an emotional level, the less they will desire a physical relationship. At least, this is what it seems that you are saying about Adam and Eve. While I can stand firmly with you regarding our new bodies that will be created after the likes of the new resurrected and glorified body of Jesus Christ, I do not see any evidence in the scriptures that the perfect bodies that God originally gave Adam and Eve which had all the plumbing for the experience of a completed physical relationship would have been there if the parts were not needed. Please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that their sexual relationship was the most important. I am just saying that I do not think that this part of their relationship was ignored because this would lessen the need for marriage. If this was so, I would think that God would have waited to marry them until they left the garden since their relationship in the garden would not need marital physical intimacy and could have been completely fulfilling as brother and sister or as two child-like humans exploring emotional relationships alone.

I still think you are imposing things on the text that aren’t in there. You make much of that when others do it and don’t seem to be willing to see it when you do it. You are IMPOSING frequent sexuality and your own experience of the centrality of that to marital intimacy. Its not in the text.

Charis, I didn’t realize that I did this. Where was it that I imposed “frequent sexuality”. What I intended to do was to show that the sexual relationship was part of the pre-fall blessing of their marriage in contrast to those who see sexuality as something not so much God-ordained but as a “necessary evil”. I also intended to reason through the issues of “increased desire” to show from my viewpoint that an “increased desire” implied a “lesser” desire pre-fall and with only one partner having their desire changed, it appears to me that this would make Adam and Eve quite a mismatch pre-fall. Well, either that or they are a mismatch post-fall. Perhaps there are other options that I haven’t thought through yet, but I think my conclusions have merit and logic to them even without my ability to see a fifth dimension in the account.

I feel some of the comments are misjudging me.

If this is something that I have done, I sincerely apologize. I do not mean to cause you pain nor do I mean to misjudge you.

Good and frequent sex does not a good marriage make- I know of what I speak.

I agree. I am not trying to put down the other wonderful ways that husband and wife bond with each other.

IF they had it (which you have convinced me they did on occasion), it was a nice perk (like chocolate to a child) but was NOT a centerpiece of the Garden experience. That experience was so far beyond sex and chocolate that Adam felt satisfied and so did Eve.

I am absolutely delighted that I was able to reason through the issue and convince you of this one thing. Thank you for telling me this because it makes me feel like I have done well in the one area of communication. I like that feeling.

As far as what was the centerpiece of the Garden experience, I believe that walking with God in the cool of the evening had to be the absolute centerpiece of their Garden experience. I believe that this was far more fulfilling to them than even their own experiences as husband and wife. Perhaps I am reading into the text from my own love of God, but that is what I believe. I could stand to be corrected though.

Your comment about sex and chocolate made me smile. My husband and I joined a Good Sams club here to get to know some of the people and the club members are all much older than we are. Every month there are comments about the things that elderly people do less frequently. I do not think eating chocolate is one of those things that is done less frequently. 😉

Charis, if there is anyway that I can communicate in a way that is less offensive, I would be willing to learn. I think that you are a precious contributor here and I do not want you to think that I am trying to paint you into a corner or try to fit you into a one-size-fits-all box. You are certainly one of a kind just like all of us are and together we are brethren in Christ.

45 Cindy K,

After reading all of this, the same question keeps coming into my mind: What kind of marriages do these men have?

I have had the same questions in my mind. When I read what they write about the origin of the female and God’s intention for her and her “punishment” I think how difficult it would be for them not to look down on their women in some way. I am just glad I am not married to a man who thinks these thoughts. I think it would be deeply troubling personally to me.

44 Gengwall,

You said:

Of course, the bible doesn’t say she had children pre-fall, nor does it say she didn’t have any. Either conclusion seems to be an argument from silence.

While I agree that it would be an argument from silence, the fact is that it is such an important subject that silence from the Bible regarding any children born before the fall would have a huge implication regarding the whole issue of salvation. For example if Eve had a boy and a girl prior to the fall, then this boy and this girl would not have inherited death through Adam since they came before the fall and not after. If they married, we would have a sub-set of people who were not affected by the fall and who did not need a Savior. Yet scripture says that all of us born from our father Adam were “in Adam” when he sinned so that “in Adam all die”.

1 Cor 15:21 For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned–

Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many.
Rom 5:16 The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification.
Rom 5:17 For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
Rom 5:19 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.

Where would we fit children who were not “in Adam” when he sinned? I think that this is one area that no children were mentioned as being born in the garden and no children left the garden with Adam and Eve, we can be sure that the only people here are earth are those who were “in Adam” when he sinned and who are all subject to death. If there are two “kinds” of humans, one subject to death and the other not subject to death then God made a huge mistake by not telling us about another “kind” of person born without the sentence of death upon them through Adam.

38 Kathleen,

I’ve always been taught that “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception” to mean (particularly about the word “conception”) that God would increase the length of time for a pregnancy.

I haven’t heard this one myself. If this was the case, then I wonder how they would explain why Eve did not get pregnant and have a child before they left the garden. Lots to think about, eh?

Arlene,
Thanks for the links. I will have a look at them. I heard one speech by Carrie, and I thought that she sounded like a lovely person.

Charis,

You said:

And though I agree that a woman’s desire for her husband is much more than physical, just think how it would be if she never ever had any sexual desire except during fertility (like animals). I think it would take away a lot of the sexualization of media, the exploitation of women, and it would make women much less dependent upon male opinion. And I think men would adjust.

I am not 100% sure of what you are getting at but the way this is worded comes across as if sexual intimacy is only dependent on a woman’s desire. I think that mutual respect means giving even when you don’t always want to give and/or respecting the other person’s need to not be forced.

Think of two children together. They never think about sex (hopefully). That’s how I see them in the Garden. They were God’s children.

I don’t see this in scripture. God created the man and woman not as young children, but as full grown mature adults. The marriage that God performed by bringing the woman to the man had nothing to do with any childlike state that they were in. If so, then I would think he would have waited to bring them together in marriage until they were emotionally and/or physically ready for marriage. Since God didn’t wait for that, we can reason it through that they were ready for marriage.

Neither children nor animals are sex obsessed

That is true, but Adam and Eve were neither children nor were they animals. And when God brought them together he didn’t identify their “one flesh union” as sex obsession. I do think that sex obsession probably did come into play after the fall and Adam’s domination of his wife may have included demands from someone who was not respectful of his wife. But do I think this was the case in the garden pre-fall? No. I think they experienced the very best that God intended marriage to be before the fall.

And I think “desire” of Genesis 3:16 has a libido component. I think the frequency of sexual activity increased after the Fall.

The problem is that “desire” was not a change made in the man, so to reason this way would mean that man’s desire in the garden was frustrated and only fulfilled once sin occurred. This doesn’t seem to be a natural reading of the text.

Interesting that God never even mentioned Adam KNOWING his wife pre-Fall. If it was such a central part of what marriage is all about then its odd that it is really unclear that they ever even had sex before the Fall.

The “one-flesh union” mention is a clear indication that their bonding was not merely emotional. In the after-fall account the “knowing” is attached to conception. Since there was no conception before Eve’s conception was “greatly increased” after the fall, there was no need to expand on “one flesh union” regarding the pre-fall life in the garden.

This is where so many go wrong in thinking that sex is somehow not quite right because it didn’t happen until sin entered the world. What people need to realize is that it isn’t sex that was the focus as if sex was something new, but the conception was the focus and it was a new component to their relationship.

33 Charis,

You said:

Are you claiming that “one flesh union”= sex?

The “one flesh union” is not just sex at all but the emotional, spiritual and physical bonding make up that union. However if we take out the sexual component and say that Adam and Eve had a special union in the garden of Eden without sex, we destroy the language. Let’s take an example to clearly bring to light what I mean. Women are generally very relational people and easily bond on an emotional level. Let’s say that you have a good woman friend and you do everything together. Is it proper to say that you and your girl friend are a “one flesh union”? No, that isn’t proper because a “one flesh union” implies bonding that encompasses more than emotional and spiritual. It also touches the sexual part of us.

There is no doubt in my mind that Adam and Eve had the very best intimacy in their marriage as they bonded together on all levels. It is unnatural to see them relating as brother and sister instead of a fully one-flesh union as husband and wife.

25 Greg Anderson,

Aside from the essentials which are spelled out clearly in the Apostle’s creed, what other doctrines in addition to patriarchy have been manufactured out of the thin air between the pages of the Bible?

Oh boy, Greg, are there a lot of sub-patriarchy additions that have been added to the scriptures. I believe CBMW has produced a “Christian Talmud” to deal with the ever increasing additions. No longer do many of these men look to the Bible for the answers because the foundation is not solid enough to hold even a fraction of the answers from scripture alone. It is only when they lay down the view of a “male bias” and realize that men and women are both made spiritually equal as joint heirs with Christ, can they stop asking such silly questions as “Can a woman be an usher and pass the offering plate from front to back instead of just from left to right?”

Lin,
Good answers! You and I think along the same line.

21 Charis,

I got stuck wondering about the issue of polygamy being brought into this discussion… I don’t think anyone here would consider polygamy a good thing.

I think you are right.

But it occurred to me that if you take “be fruitful and multiply” as a command which must be obeyed lest one sizzle in hell, then I suppose a polygamist could be viewed as just doing his duty by impregnating as many women as possible to protect them from disobeying God’s command and incurring God’s judgment…

I don’t think we can equate “be fruitful land multiply” as a prohibition command. I see it as a blessing on the union of the original man and original woman and there is an entire world of their offspring, so God truly has blessed them. Also it wasn’t a command that demanded a punishment for disobedience. Once they experienced the blessing of marital life, I don’t think they worried about being disobedient.

19 Charis,

I am suggesting the possibility- based upon two mentions of childbirth in the immediate context of this “desire” (right in Genesis 3:16)- that this “desire” God speaks of toward her husband does have a component of an increase in her libido as a consequence of the Fall. Again, I don’t see this as a bad thing. I see this as a redemptive thing.

If it was this way, I wouldn’t see it as a bad thing either, but it would give an idea that in the garden before sin, that the woman and man were quite mismatched sexually. I also don’t see this as a redemptive thing. I would need you to explain this because I don’t see this as anything to do with salvation.

18 Charis,

The first man and woman certainly were not going to “fill the earth” so God’s commission in Genesis 1 must go forward to the rest of us.

This was the original command to Adam and Eve and it is their descendants who will ultimately fill the earth. I do not believe that the command is demanded from each one of us individually.

So, are you and Cheryl claiming that a woman who never has children has disobeyed God’s command in Genesis 1? Or is that null and void nowadays now that the earth is pretty full?

My answer would be the same as my answer above.

Were only the early women “required” to give birth or else be in disobedience to a command of God? What happened to the women who were infertile or never married?

I don’t think they saw it as an individual “requirement” but a blessing from God. Those who were infertile or never married could still be seen as obedient to God in the areas that He called them in. But marrying and having children was certainly seen as the “norm”. Paul did speak to this when he said that being single was also a blessing because it gave one more time to spend serving God alone.

16 Charis,

Only female humans had the “consequence” of “your desire will be for your husband”. Female animals only mate when fertile.

Animals (even monogamous ones) fulfill “be fruitful and multiply” WITHOUT “your desire will be for your husband”. They have a periodic appetite they feed which takes care of being fruitful and multiplying. You have noted that conception and birth would need to have been infrequent with immortals.

Humans also are one of the only ones who appear to mate even when there is no possibility of conception. Only in humans is the “one flesh union” a huge part of our inner souls. Animals are just not in the same category.

I don’t think there will be sex in heaven, yet people will be more satisfied. What if the intimacy in the Garden was intensely satisfying without lots of sex? What if sexual intimacy was infrequent before the Fall, just a periodic appetite as it is for animals?

These are good questions. I see nothing that would suggest that sexual intimacy was less in intensity or frequency than any other normal newly married couple. The satisfaction would not have been either/or but both intimate physical bonding and intimate emotional bonding. As far as the future goes, the Bible gives us the picture of a bride and her husband joining together in union. I have no idea what that means in our relationship with Jesus as we are the bride of Christ, but I do know that we are joined together into one body as the bride and then with Jesus and whatever that entails will be fulfilling in our relationship with our God and Savior Jesus Christ far more than any mere human relationship here on earth could be. I guess we will find out when we get to Heaven. One thing I do know is that marriage and human sexuality is not needed in Heaven and what we will experience is far better like the shadow is nothing compared to the real thing.

15 Charis,

You said:

But God does tell Eve “your desire will be for your husband” in the context of mentioning increased pregnancy and childbirth twice. Many church fathers understood it as a sexual desire (in a very disrespectful demeaning manner). While I disagree with their disrespect of a woman’s sexual desire, I do wonder if they were seeing something that we have wrongfully dismissed (because we don’t want to acknowledge that the increased sexual desire of the woman is a consequence of the fall)?

It may be that many church fathers understood God’s words to mean that she will have a sexual desire for the man, but many of the same men blamed the woman for the man’s problems. They weren’t looking at the issue with unbiased eyes. However if I had a roomful of women and I asked them to tell me about the desire that they have for their man, I would say that most women would describe their need for emotional intimacy and friendship/partnership. I would venture to guess that most women would not describe an overriding sexual desire as primary nor would they describe their need to dominate the man. Sometimes I just wish that men would stop thinking that they know who women are and just take the time to ask women how they think instead of just assuming. Perhaps this would have cleared up a lot of misconceptions even by the early church fathers.

As far as an increased sexual desire of women after the fall, I don’t see any evidence for this. Many women have a problem the other way especially those who have a number of small children that keep them busy from morning until night so that they fall into bed exhausted. Tell them that their “desire” is increased from the time of the fall and I’ll bet you’ll get a laugh back.

I think the biggest thing that women have for men that can be unhealthy is a desire to be needed and wanted that makes many women “men pleasers” and ones who are ripe for abuse because they are feel like they need a man.

Ingrid,
That is such a precious story! Thanks for sharing it. It is amazing at how these little minds think.

4 tiro,

A lot of studies about hormones show that testosterone overbalance is partly responsible for rage and domination desires in males. And well, we women know what some of the hormonal imbalances do to us.

This certainly is a consideration that the change in woman and the fall itself for man changed the relationship of hormones to our moods/actions. Interesting position.

5 Lin,

These guys love to talk about history teaching us truths of scripture but history teaches us that women have not sought to dominate men. Just the opposite. Even today many are still wearing burkas.

If women were seeking to dominate men, they really have been quite incompetent in their quest. :o)

This is so true! Why is it that so many think these men are telling the truth about Genesis, when their theory is disproven throughout history with no historical evidence of these burkha-clad women fighting to “dominate men”. The evidence to the contrary is clear and evident for anyone to see who has an open mind.

2 Don,

I really cannot understand why these non-egals cannot see how they are disrespecting Scripture by doing these types of things you mention. The sad thing is that some are respected and use this respect to promote blarney. It is one thing to quibble about a few points in a story, it is another to make up stories.

I agree! When I read the ideas of these men that have been imported into the Genesis account, it makes me very sad because so many people think that what these men say is the truth and the “fairy tale” account now becomes what actually happened. No wonder so many look down on women as if they are worth less in some way than a man is worth.

Lin #3,

Ortlund cannot see how sinful his view of this passage really is. He is looking for a scape goat interpretation to make Adam not look so bad and to justify his views of rulership over women. It is nothing less than a carnal desire for power.

Another point: Eve was going to have children anyway. Now she will have more, quicker and in pain. However, Adam now has to deal with cursed land his sinful desire will be to dominate his wife and she allows it by turning to Adam instead of God.

Excellent thoughts!

Charis,

Can you tell me from the passage where we know that the first man and woman had marital relations before the fall? I don’t see it in there.

There are two places where we can understand that Adam and Eve had normal marital relations in the garden. The first indication is that God commanded it in Genesis 1:28.

Genesis 1:28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;

There is no indication at all that the man and woman would not have naturally obeyed the command. The second very strong indication is in Genesis 2.

Gen 2:23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.”
Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Right after Adam accepts Eve as his own flesh and bone mate, it is immediately said “For this reason” that they are to come together and it is so that “they shall become one flesh.” Although it isn’t worded that Adam “knew” Eve, it is clear that God joined the man and woman together in marriage and right after he joined them their becoming one flesh is a very proper way of letting us know that they indeed did become one flesh as a result of God joining them in marriage. If they didn’t have sex, then verse 24 is meaningless in the verse immediately following Adam’s complete acceptance of Eve.

When we also take into consideration that Adam and Eve likely lived in the garden for an extended period of time before the fall happened, it would be unnatural for two married people who are sexual beings to not obey God and have marital relations.

You also said:

I think that the “desire” in “your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” must have a sexual component to it. I base this on the context of Genesis 3:16 which mentions pregnancy and childbirth twice. As you observed, God increases her fertility post-Fall per Gen 3:16. I think God not only increased her fertility but also increased her sexual desire.

God did not say that he would increase her sexual desire. He only said that he would greatly increase her conception and her toil. The problem with making sex a post fall thing would be that we would have to see Adam’s desire as not there also before the fall because sex can certainly happen with only one person’s strong desire and the other person’s lesser desire but willingness to give of themselves. If we see animals as blessed by God and going about obeying God by doing what animals do naturally, surely we shouldn’t think that God’s blessing on the man and woman would cause them to choose to ignore the marital “becoming one flesh” in order to only enjoy talking with each other. Nothing in the text shows that “one flesh” was not part of their obedience to God.

I believe the “desire” spoken of in Genesis 3:16 has other components besides the sexual component. She desired to please, to satisfy, to “be enough” for her husband. This can go off the deep end into husband idolatry- where she lives to please man instead of God. I say this from personal experience living in a woman’s skin.

The Hebrew word for “desire” according to Strong’s means:

in the original sense of stretching out after; a longing: – desire.

Since it is a stretching out after, a longing for the man and since only Adam was forced out of the garden, it clearly explains why Eve left to go after the man instead of staying in the Garden with God.

So as far as sexuality goes, unless God said that he would increase the man’s sexuality after sin happened, and he didn’t say that, then we can assume that Adam and Eve had normal sexual relations in the garden just as they were commanded by God.