Kay

“This did not take away the consequence of the sin, but it did allow God to have some mercy upon her.”

Yes, the suffering the consequence of sin is not the same as being punished for sin. Back to my example of a child being deceived into sexual favors by a man – and then suffering the consequence of contracting a sexually transmitted disease.

The disease was not a punishment, but a consequence of sin.

The same as sinning by deception will make one want to cover “shame” with clothes and hide in the garden. While outwardly, we see no difference between suffering the affects of sin by deception or by rebellion, there is difference between the two.

“and they shall be one flesh” How can a part of “one flesh” have two leaders?

Mark wrote: “Why can you accept that there are obvious physical differences, but God wouldn’t give other differences. This is contradictory to what we know about the different natures, emotions etc that men and women have.”

Mark,

Really?? What different nature does a man have that a woman does not? Or what nature does a woman have that a man does not?

What different emotions does a man have that a woman does not?

Mark wrote: “Adam is made first, spoken to first, the primary recipient of God’s banishment.”

Doesn’t Genesis 1:21 say that the serpent was made first and 3:14 say the serpent was the first cursed?

Mark wrote: “I believe that yes Adam was the leader before the fall. I believe the fall corrupted this leadership- i’m not sure whether i would use the word ‘curse’ in my description though.”

Why not ‘curse’? (I thought your stance was that Eve sinned rebelliously)

How could we now expect to have a different outcome if a present day “Eve” gives some forbidden fruit to her “Adam” husband?

So, God wants us to continue to use a model that didn’t work in its pure pre-Fall form and on top of that now it’s also “corrupted”?

Are we to believe 1 Timothy 2:12-14 is saying that it’s somehow better to follow “Adam(s)” who sin knowingly, rather than risk sinning due to deception? I just can’t find anything in Scripture that says sinning on purpose is superior to sinning due to deception.

Since that model did not work for Adam and Eve, then it makes no sense to say that somehow it’s God’s will to continuing to follow it.

Mark wrote: “I think the pattern of leadership which emerges throughout the rest of scripture teaches us something about Eden.”

Yes, I agree – the pattern of male leadership is a corruption of
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

Mark,

You wrote: “Is sin not precisely a rebelilon against a Holy God. She 100% DID have a rebelious nature. If she didn’t then she wouldn’t have been a sinner. Even if you want to claim she didn’t rebel before the fall, it is very incosistent with the nature of sin to claim that as a sinner she was not rebellious.”

Again, as a concrete example: a little girl who is deceived into sexual favors by a man promising candy and toys will still feel “dirty” when the deed is done.

She is not acting out of rebellion, but in deception. Is she?

Mark wrote: “They both made clothes to cover BOTH their shame. They both hid in the garden. Nothing in this makes poor little Eve sound ’shell shocked’. SO therefore it is most dinately NOT fitting to come to this conclusion why God spoke to Adam first. This comes dangerously close to saying that Eve didn’t infact sin. There is nothing innocent about sin.”

Sinning by deception WILL make one want to cover “shame” with clothes and hide in the garden.

Although outwardly, we see no differance between suffering the affects of sin by deception or by rebellion, there is difference between the two.

“Conversely, the only argument from the subsequent text that seems to support Adam’s leadership is “he shall rule over you”. Mark takes that as a remedy. I see it as a prophetic consequence. In either case, it is post-fall, so it can’t possibly be used to establish Adamic leadership pre-fall.”

That is why I posed this question to Mark:
So, are you saying, you think that God had a plan of male leadership that was a blessing before the Fall and then a curse afterward?

“They shall not labor in vain,
or bear children for calamity…
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together,
the lion shall eat straw like the ox…” (Isaiah 65:23-25)

“Unto the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.”

The KJV actually comes closer to the original intent than many other translations. The word translated sorrow in the KJV and pain in the NIV is used only 3 times in the Bible and while pain is a possible meaning, it isn’t translated that way anywhere else. The KJV’s sorrow is the preferred use.

By the way, the second time the word pain appears in the NIV’s version (with pain you will give birth to children) it comes from a different Hebrew word, used 7 times in the Bible. But that one isn’t translated pain anywhere else either. Again, sorrow is preferred as in the KJV rendering. Both these words come from the Hebrew root atsab. It appears 17 times, ten of which are rendered grieve, and once again pain is never used.
Which begs the question: were the modern translators more influenced by their perceptions and/or personal experience concerning childbirth than by the intent of the Hebrew?

*off topic* Congratulations and Happy 25th gengwall and wife.

TL,

I’ve wrestled with that pain in child birth issue and I can’t look for it at the moment…but there is evidence in some ancient Hebrew man. that what is being referred to is not necessarily the actual labor and delivery birth process, but the painful process having one son kill the other.

Good stuff, gengwall.
I find all the patterns in Hebrew literature fascinating. Understanding how the ancient Hebrews wrote matters greatly in comprehending the meaning. Ancient Hebrews used their literary conventions to impart meaning to their careful readers. But today, we read the Bible and expect to fully understand it on the first reading. But the Scriptures were never meant to be understood that way – they were meant to be poured over, to be wrestled with, to be an integral part of peoples thoughts.

“If i understand that Eden was where God dwelt on earth with perfect sinless people, then it is incomprehensible to think Eve ‘could’ have stayed in the garden as a sinner in the presence of God.”

Jesus was God and he lived among us.

Mark,

Your wrote:”So it is sensible to see why God has to re-address the use of the word ‘curse’ It seems hard to me to seperate the flow of the chapter between the serpent and Eve. What is discussed with her fits snuggly into the flow of the chapter and the curse of the serpent. Perhaps someone can show me in the text why we should make this seperation.”

So, are you saying, you think that God had a plan of male leadership that was a blessing before the Fall and then a curse afterward?

“Since those who are led astray are ones who have sinned unintentionally, I think that we can have full confidence that Eve being led astray by the serpent, sinned unintentionally.”

The serpent seems more aware of what the Lord God said than the woman was and then adds to what God said. In Matthew 4 Jesus is victorious because He knows the Scripture better than Satan (well, of course) – so I take that as a lesson for staying out of deception. Study the scriptures.

…that will be right after “What is the name of the fruit Eve picked in the Garden of Eden?” a. apple, b. pear, c. forbidden, or d. show me the verse

“because you have done this”

Cheryl,
Good deal. I’m adding that to my next study outline…thanks!

Mark,

I’d like to say that I really appreciate your obvious devotion to the Lord, your careful attitude concerning sin, and your willingness have respectful discussions without the usual name-calling that degenerates into personal attacks. It is refreshing to find other like-minded believers who want to be Bereans.

“Since those who are led astray are ones who have sinned unintentionally, I think that we can have full confidence that Eve being led astray by the serpent, sinned unintentionally. She still suffered the consequences, but the fact that God held the serpent responsible and God cursed the serpent and all animals because of what one animal did, shows that the blame was laid at the feet of the serpent, not at the feet of the one who sinned unintentionally.”

Cheryl,

If I may reiterate – many people ARE being taught that God’s words to Eve were “a curse” and not an explanation of the consequesces. But we can read, right there in Genesis 3, that God says only the serpent and the ground were cursed.
vs.17 “cursed are you above all the wild beasts” & vs.19 “cursed is the ground”

You wouldn’t believe the surprised responses by fellow Christians when I asked them to read that aloud.

Mark,
You wrote: “If Adam and Eve’s sin is so different, i.e his is deliberate and hers isnt, why does Eve hide? If Eve’s heart was innocent, she would have had no need to hide or be ashamed.”

As a concrete example: a little girl who is deceived into sexual favors by a man promising candy and toys will still feel “dirty” when the deed is done.

I Timothy 1:12-14
“I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. 13Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. 14The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.”

Mark,

You wrote: “This is precisely the comp position. Gen 1-3 talks about equality of essence, not function, my precise point.”

So again, are you saying that a male’s authority is not in his essence, but by being born with male reproductive organs?

But, “there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” according to Jesus in Matthew 19

Or do you have some other way of defining male and female?

Mark,
You’ve said your “view is this- men and women are equal in essence, in the image fo God, but not in function.”

Are you saying that a male’s authority is not in his essence, but by being born with male reproductive organs?

But, “there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” according to Jesus in Matthew 19

Or, are you saying that the essence of men and women is different?

Mark,

You wrote: “Although i think it would be far more beneficial to first look at all the contorversial texts in more depth, before we begin discussing the practical sides of the arguments. The reason i say this is because it is easy to pick practical implications of both views and try to use them as proof that that view is invalid. However atm i am more interested in seeing what the bible says before discussing those things, so as not to distort the bible itself”

I’m not asking for things outside the Bible.

Which scriptures tell us the differences?

Mark,

You wrote: “That is they both equally rebelled against God and sinned.”
But Eve did not rebel, she was “deceived.”

If a woman needs man’s authority over her, then why in I Cor. 7 did Paul write “to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I” and “the woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord…this I say for your benefit..to promote what is appropriate and secure distracted devotion to the Lord.”?

Mark,
Do those different roles and responsibilities that you say men and women have affect practically how each helps the other become more like Christ?
If so, please give some examples how is this practically applied in a way that is exclusively masculine and in complete contrast to its practical application in an exclusively feminine manner?

Gen 3:6 “When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”
The grammar says that Adam was “with” Eve.

Mark,
You wrote, ” “The man’ is resposible for what has happened in the garden as the leader of his wife.”
So, are you saying that God punished Eve with banishment from the garden for something her “leader”/husband was responsible for?

Cheryl,

Your last two comments/posts were like little Reader’s Digests – really concise, yet full – I’d luv to spread them like confetti in every church parking lot!

Lauren,

You will find it very helpful in answering your questions concerning 1 Timothy 2 to read through “Neopatriarch once again fails to refute Cheryl Schatz.” It is the first article listed in Cheryl’s Catagories entry
1 Timothy 2.

I’m sure that her articles under 1 Timothy 3 will be equally as helpful.

You will find plenty of supporting evidence here. I’m glad you’ve joined the conversation.

“Sure he may not be able to work, or live normally, but being the head in my opinion is not about demands or exercising some sort of authority. I believe the authority is there just not demaded by the man… make sense???”

No, you’ve lost me – I can’t make sense of it. How can it be “not about” “exercising some sort of authority” and also be “the authority” that “is there just not demanded”?

“Let me ask you this question- when Christ washed His disciples feet, do you think for a moment they questioned who it was who had the authority in that room? Yes Christ demonstrated mutual submission in His actions but he is still Lord- the perfect example for a husband, except obviously we are not God.”

Christ is still has all authority and still is Lord and “obviously” husbands “are not God.” The way I see it, the only thing left for you and I is mutual submission.

“Authority is a good and healthy thing, provided it is a refection of Christ- there lies the challenge.”

Therein also lies the impossibility of it – no man is able to do that 100% of the time because no man is Christ.

Is this why you say, “I hold that none can demand or exercise their authority.”?

So, do I understand that you believe a husband has been given some kind of authority that he can not exercise? Then what is its purpose?