Mark

Cheryl,

I’m not so sure that you have satisfactorally addressed the main issue in regard to our discussion.

You said that Numbers 14 says that the other generations were wicked also. But like i said i can’t see that in the text. Not only that but the 2 Kings reference deals with Menassah not the people. I can’t see how you can just interpret it as all Israel in these passages?

For example you said “The minute a person turns, repents and loves God, God breaks the sinful cycle. God is not unfair to the righteous.”

But according to Numbers 14 this simple doesn’t work. In Numbers the nation is rebelling about going into the Land promised to them, yet in verse 20 we read that God did forgive them. How does this work in your view, when directly following it, God then saids they will not enter the land. These people were forgiven yet still punished for their rebellion.

Again let me state that it seems far more consistent in view of all the relevant biblical passages to say that people do suffer the consequences of other peoples sins. The next generation did not rebel yet they still had to wonder in the desert for 40 years. They weren’t directly accountable for the sins, yet the repocussions still effected them.

Sorry another point.

I just read through some of your comments Cheryl to others about original sin, and i must confess now after reading them that i disagree slightly with you.

I agree that we have a corrupt sinful nature, however i disagree that children are not born ‘sinful’. I can’t see how you say one while rejecting the other. MAybe you can expand on it for me? At what age therefore do children become sinful? When does there corrupt nature kick in if not at birth?

Regarding those who outright reject the notion of original sin i must ask therefore how you even understand grace. Without a proper understanding of sin, the offensiveness of it to God, our inabilty to be sinless, i can’t even fathom how grace is attractive. It seems like a cheap version of grace. You are either ‘dead’ in your sin according to Eph 2 or you are not. Maybe someone can express how they understand what the bible teaches about sin if Augustine and the early church was incorrect?

Cheryl,

Thanks for your answers. A few more comments.

1. First off- good on you for correcting my wrong biblical quote, sorry about that. However I can’t see in Num 14 how the text is saying that the generations are evil. Likewise I can’t see how 2 Kings is relating to the whole of Israel. It specifically calls into view Menassah. Not only that, if your interpretation would be to work you would have to say that every single person in Israel was apostate. There is no room in your theology to understand how the righteous amongst the nation still suffered because of the majority. Lamentations I think makes this clear. There were people in Israel who were faithful to the covenant, althought the majority (and the kings) were not. The same can be seen with Elijah, when God reserves 7000 for himself who do not bow the knee to Baal. To me the covenant was communial. The nation as a whole was to abide by it- especially the leaders (kings). When they were unfaithful, the nation suffered for that sin, even those who were righteous (though few). This same paradigm seems consistent with what the bible teaches about generational sin. Although person b is not responsible for person a’s sin, he/she may still suffer the consequences of it. Your thoughts?
2. I am glad you are not supporting universalism. It appears we again agree on this. Frankly I am astounded that you even have to defend the doctrine of original sin. Maybe that is a cultural thing in Canada/US. It seems pretty clear to me in the bible the nature of our depravity. Not only that Pelagianism was wiped out early on as heretical teaching by the church. It appears however that it still runs rampid. I applaud you for defending the bible here.
   3. About the incarnation. First I must confess that I believe that this doctrine is probably the hardest to understand, even above the Trinity. How Jesus could leave glory, humble himself to earth and be both fully God and fully man is very difficult to understand, let alone explain. However I don’t see what you have said as solving the difficulty. You seemed to imply that not accepting your approach diminishes Jesus humanity- I don’t think it does. Jesus is fully human because he humbled himself to become human. The bible declares that he was tempted in everyway like us, so he was fully human, yet he withheld temptation. The reason I believe he withheld was because he was fully God. God cannot sin therefore Jesus could not have sinned, even though he was tempted to sin because of his humanity (this is where the incarnation gets messy). Your view makes it theoretically possible that Jesus could have sinned and I appreciate what you are saying because you are trying to understand how his humanity worked. But to imply that Jesus could have sinned is to deny that he was fully God, not able to sin. It also implies that God is able to sin theoretically and that he is changeable, both of which the bible denies. So I must protest again that emphasising this stuff about sin natures doesn’t solve any issues. I think it probably creates more. Not only that, but the bible is silent on this issue. It never says that Jesus was born of a virgin because only Mary did not pass on a corrupted nature. You are basically speculating on the issue. But I can see why you so it, because you need the incarnation to support your understanding of the banishment and sin, but I don’t think it works.
3. Finally I would just like to point out how you understand the seed of the woman in Gen 3. you said “It was God who said that the seed of the woman would defeat the serpent.” Now I don’t think this is actually correct. The verse in Gen does not say that the seed of the woman would ‘crush’ the head of the serpent. The NIV is unhelpful here. The Hebrew uses the exact same word for the serpent and the woman, namely the serpent’s seed will bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, and the woman’s seed would bruise the head of the serpents seed. Nothing in this verse indicates that the woman’s seed would be victorious or crush the serpent. All this protoevangelium stuff is read back into the verse from Christian heritage. I think the point of the verse is to show the enmity between the two offspring, the corruption of relationships because of sin, firstly between God and people, then between people and people and finally between people and animals. To say that one is victorious over the other is eisegesis not exegesis.
   5. That said I am not saying that Jesus did not conquer over Satan, I believe that to be true, but the specific verse in Gen 3 grammatically does not say this, it’s read into the verse. Jesus conquering over Satan is established from other passages not Gen 3.

Also one other point.

Where does the incarnation come into play in your theology. You seem to state very strongly that Eve did not have a rebellious sin nature because this was neccesary for Jesus to also not have a sin nature.( through the virgin birth with no corrupted father) But where does the fact come in that Jesus is God, and that in God there is no sin. To me he is sinless (or without a sin nature) precisely because he is fully God and he is fully human because he is born of woman (since only women can bear children)

I can’t help but wonder if you are pushing your Gen 1-3 theology into the incarnation and corrupting it.

Hi Cheryl,

I appreciate your attempt to defend the doctrine of original sin. I agree wholeheartedly here with you. However there were a few things i thought you might like to flesh out a little for me.

You said “God never prophesied that Eve might rebel and eat from the tree of life after the fall because Eve still had the ability to not sin.”

I wonder how you hadle texts such as these with your theology…

Eph 2 “And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. “
1 John 3:4 “sin is lawlessness”
I’m not convinced that the bible ever gives the indication that any single person has ever had the capacity to ‘not sin’ after the fall, even Eve. What texts support the idea that Eve was able to not sin after her original sin. Please cite your texts

You said “ That error that has been taught by many is the doctrine that Adam’s offspring are charged by God with Adam’s sin. The Bible lays this error to rest by stating that the son will not bear the punishment for the father’s sin.” You then quote Eze 18.

Now this may simply be terminology issues. I agree that no-one is responsible for another’s sin, Adams or otherwise. But are you saying that children do not suffer the punishment for the sins of their parents (on earth i mean, not eternally). If so, how do you understand these texts…
2 Kings 23: 25-27 “Before him there was no king like him, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his might, according to all the Law of Moses, nor did any like him arise after him.26 Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27 And the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

Here Judah is punished for the apostasy of an earlier king Manasseh. The effects of the sin of the king result in the destruction of Jerusalem, regardless of Josiah’s reforms. Also…

Numbers 13:18 “The LORD is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.”

Here quite plainly the children are punished to the third and forth generation. Can you clarify your position?

Also you said “since Christ is able to remove not just the sin of one man, but the transgressions of the many (Romans 5:16). The passage is an extremely important apologetic passage for the universality of Christ’s sacrifice”

Again maybe this is just terminology, but are you promoting a doctrine of ‘universalism’, namely that all people are saved and none perish in hell?

Thanks

Cheryl,

I’m abit confused with what your saying about God’s declaration of becoming like God.

you said
“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.”

Why have you said that Adam ‘was’ and continues to be…?
The text clearly saids that he has ‘become’ (hayah) like one of ‘us’. This could not be the case if Adam ‘was’ like that before the fall. What Adam ‘has become’ is new from the fall (and continues i agree).

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

I believe that what the Serpent said was a half truth. They did become like God knowing good and evil, but not in the way that Eve expected- a ‘desire’ to become ‘wise’.
The irony is that rather than becoming ‘wise’ when they ate, they became ashamed of their nakedness.

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

Pinklight,

Let’s look again at Adam and Eve’s confessions (or lack of).

You said “Adam was saying that God and the woman were at fault for the reason why he ate”

I agree with you here, but where is it in the text that saids this. What Adam said is true is it not? See the problem? When you read Adam you read into it that he is blaming someone else, but when you read Eve you say the opposite. My point is though, neither of them said anything false. You are being inconsistent. What Adam said was true becasue God addresses him for ‘listening to his wife’. What Eve said was true becasue God addresses the serpent “because you have done this…”. So i find it odd that you assume something about Adam but not Eve. Deception does not exonorate her from being sinful.

“God never blames the woman as he blames the serpent and Adam by saying “Because you have”.

I agree again, but God does not deny what Adam saids, in fact the opposite is true. He questions the woman “What have you done”, and then again when punishing Adam saids “because you have listened to your wife”. Adam’s statement about the fall is true, likewise so is Eve’s. You will have to do better to construe that the sin nature excluded Eve.

“She was a sinner, but not a rebel.”

I would really like to know your definition of sin, and also please support your definition from the bible if sin is not in fact ‘rebellion’. Also did God give a prohibition from eating the fruit…yes or no? Did Eve disobey that prohibition by eating the fruit, yes or no? Is disobedience rebellion, yes or no?

Cheryl,

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

Why have you over emphasised what I said about Eve being technically made from the earth. Technically she is, since Adam was made from the earth, and Eve from him. However I am not trying to deny all the texts you raised. You have taken something you thought would help your view and pushed it way beyond my intentions, rather than engaging more fully with the more crucial matters.

Regarding ‘ha’adam’, we know in 3:9 it can only be referring to one man (not Eve) since the very next verse reveals this- only the man responds. However in immediately after the banishment, who is introduced, Adam and Eve- both of them. So the context helps determine who is intended, in 3:9 only the man, in 3:22ff both of them.

It saddens me that you dismiss even egalitarian scholars, rather than questioning whether it is in fact you who has it wrong. It is not good enough to simply blame them and me that it is comp ‘tradition’ that effects out exegesis. It might help you to know that I didn’t grow up in a Christian home or Church, so I am not affected by anything. If anything, the opposite is true, I grew up in a feminist culture. So it is not my past ‘traditions’ that are affecting me.

Also regarding your texts to disprove my point that Eve was not a ‘threat’. I asked you to show me a text that talks about ‘sin’ or even ‘sinners’ as not being a ‘threat’ to God, not to quote texts that talk about unintentional sin. There is a big difference here. Your conclusion draws that unintentional sin= not threat, which I think is wrong. Sin is an offense to God, whether it be intentional or not, if that were not the case there would be no need for sacrifice, either through Mosaic law or Jesus Himself. Did Jesus die once for ‘all’, or once for ‘intentional’ sin only? Also please engage with relevant biblical texts regarding sin, rather than simply saying they are ‘Calvinistic’. Either the text is saying no-one is righteous or it isn’t. It is either saying no one seeks God or it doesn’t. This isn’t a matter of theological preferences. Also why are Noah and Abraham declared ‘righteous’, is it because of their works or because of God’s grace? Remember how NT authors speak of these men- they are men of faith. Faith is a gift of God (Eph 2:8-9). So they are ‘righteous’ not because of themselves, but because of their faith which in itself is a gift of grace from God. Any declaration of being ‘righteous’ is purely merited to the grace of God. Paul conclusion therefore in Romans 3 is that by or in themselves, no one is righteous- “all have fallen short”. Notice the text does not say ‘except Eve’!
I can see now how you come to very wrong conclusions about sin in the fall narrative, since you don’t understand how sin is understood in the rest of the bible. Also it is not good enough for you to say that these sorts of issues are not relevant to the issue of women in ministry. The aspect of sin seems very relevant to your arguments right through the bible, so please don’t ignore them, when you yourself use them in your own arguments.

Lin

You said this

“Eve was looking for that promised Messiah. The correct translation is: “I have purchased a man with YHWH”

Do you really think Eve was looking for the messiah? How would she even know what the messiah was? You are not doing exegesis, you are reading the New Testament back into 3:16. After all how would a hebrew of understood 3:16, since it was written to them. Now i am not saying that in light of the NT what you say is not correct, 3:16 is often understood as the first glimpse of the gospel, but to say what you did about Eve is not actually doing exegesis.

Regarding 4:1, look at the relationship between ‘Cain’ and ‘brought forth’ (or purchased as you used). Then you will see that what Eve said was literally ” I have cained a Cain from Yahweh’. It’s another play on words. To say that Eve is looking for the messiah is looking way too much into the narrative. If this is what Eve was doing it contradicts with your understanding if 3:16 since you believe that Eve was putting her husband before God, do you not?

pinklight,

regarding what Adam and Eve said to God about the fall is important. Both rather than admitting their fault, pass it on.

Gen 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.”

Now this is true, is it not? The woman did give Adam the fruit, and God did give the woman to be with the man. So Adam has not lied here, but he has not admitted his own fault and tried to blame it on someone else.

Gen 3:13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

God knows Adam told the truth by the question he asks of the woman. Now the woman also has not lied, it was the serpent who deceived her, but in EXACTLY the same was as Adam, she has not admitted her own fault.

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.

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)
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.

No where in scripture is Eve considered to have a sperate sin nature to Adam. She disobeyed God’s command. Acted the same was as Adam, was punished for her sin.

Cheryl,

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.

Your conclusion to say that i therefore have to translate every use of it as more than one person is just ridiculous. You obviously are not reading what i wrote, nor understanding the actual possibilities of the meaning of the word with the definite article.

It was you who said that ‘ha’adam’ can only refer to one person. I have simply shown that is not true. WE have clear examples around the fall narrative proving the opposite of what you have said previously. Please engage properly with what i say not make assumptions.

Now you do state that the returning to the ground etc therefore must exclude Eve. This is a better argument rather than pushing what i say to a wrong conclusion. However you only come to this assumption because you deny the historical position of the church.

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). 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.

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.

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

Lin,

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

I appreciate your boldness to at least say the comp teaching is sin. Although i do think you are extremely wrong, it is refreshing to here some one who is not politically correct all the time.

pinklight,

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

A metaphorical approach is to say this didn’t actually happen.

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

Scriptural proof for Eve’s leaving is the semantic range of ‘ha’adam’.
It can mean more than one person. Therefore Gen 3:22ff includes Eve, but the text is addressed to the man as the head.

Cheryl, in relation to comment 50

“You speculation is that she was kicked out even though the text doesn’t say that”

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’.

“I would think that my speculation has at least some textual evidence while there is no evidence from the text that she was kicked out. It is merely your own speculation.”

This is unfortunately not the case. Your ‘proof’ is wrong. You have not exegetically understood what 3:16 means. Therefore your view is purely speculative. Mine however is grammatically supported by ‘ha’adam’ But I do agree that it does not explicitly say “the woman was banished’

Cheryl, in relation to comment 49.

I am glad that you have corrected where I misrepresented you. Continue to do so, if I am wrong.

“My conclusion is because the woman did not sin with willful rebellion. Do you agree with me on this”

I agree that she was deceived, however I disagree that it wasn’t rebellion. God gave a law, Eve did not obey it. This to me equals rebellion.

“she now knows the truth”

What truth? She responds to her sin exactly the same as Adam (hides, makes covering, blames someone else for her sin). That is they have the same response. Is this not the same nature of sin. Do you believe that Eve sinned once, but was then sinless again or perfect again?

“but I would like to see specific arguments from the text that show that Eve has a rebellious sin nature.”

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?

pinklight

i do not believe the two different accounts of creation contradict each other. Nor do i believe in the hype of source criticism and the like. However to adopt an over literal view which is what you and Cheryl are promoting, naturally comes into problems, namely the issue about when animals were created. If i remember correctly i think what Cheryl saids is this must be one half of the species (i.e the males or females) and the other gender is what is in view in Gen 1.

The simple fact is they are two seperate accounts with different emphasis. Gen 1 is an overview, Gen 2-3 is a more precise analysis of the human/God relationships and the fall. They are not intended to be understood over-literally.

However it seems to be that Cheryl thinks to not accept the over literal view equals liberalism. The problem with this, is that evangelicalism supports what i am saying not the over literal interpretation.

Anyway maybe we should proceed to another of my points.

Cheryl,

I wonder if we have very different understanding of what a ‘conservative’ theology is. Numerous times you have hinted that a opinion of mine may be getting near ‘liberal’, and thus the assumption is made that your view is the conservative one. But then you go and make all these comments about the sovereinty and pre-determined plans of God (or lack of in your view) and expect me to think that you do hold a conservative option to the scriptures.

It is obvious that you do not have a proper undersanding of the reformed conservative position of divine sovereignty. This is clear in your statements. Now i’m not sure you would wish to delve down that path, but since you brought it up i will.

I thought you said you believed in God’s sovereignty (which of course means God is in complete control of everything that happens…even the hairs on your head) yet you define it as God ‘allowing’ it to happen. This is not a belief in the sovereignty of God at all, it’s just ip service.

Let me illustrate on something in Gen you said

“So God willed the serpent to deceive the woman? And God willed Adam to disobey God?”

Now what do you mean by willed? I would most definately say that it was God’s plan for the fall to happen. We know this is the case because Jesus was chosen before the world was even made to be the lamb without blemish and to be the one to redeem his people (1 Pet 1:19-20). Now how could God choose Jesus to save his people before the world, if the fall was not part of God’s plan.

To say that God’s is not in control of something in His world or that it happens as not part of his plan is really to deny the sovereignty of God. Your view is an oxymoron! You need to actually understand the conservative reformed position before making these sorts of comments about predestination. It has revealed alot about your theology.

I will respond more later and deal with your supposed Jeremiah proof text to deny pre-destination.

First this needs to be address since it is getting a bit ridiculous now.

“So you are not going to answer my question again?”

Cheryl you said the above thing to me again, but then right after it preceeded to address my answer to your question which supposedly i did not answer. Do you get it! You say i am avoiding your question, but then right after that engage with my answer. Now that isn’t fair. Please re-think your tactics. You accuse me of wiggling out of your questions, when in fact i gave an answer to it. And i know you know that, because then you engage with my comment. Please explain?

Anyway, now i will respond to the actual issue at hand

pinklight,

what made her see the fruit was good? The conversation led her there. Or had she never physically looked at the tree before in your view? You said her “perception was now in a state of deception”, but how did she get there if not through the conversation? It might help to look at what the biblical commentators say on this one?

you said “Why don’t you answer some of my specific questions?”

Please don’t start taking Cheryl’s approach to discussions. You asked me in #37 talk about the ‘stingy’ aspect and i did, so please don’t start giving the indication as if i am not answering the questions you pose. It’s not a helpful tactic to take.

Now about the chronology. I have not said that Gen 1 is not historic so don’t read me that way. What i am saying is that grammatically you are inserting the narrative of Gen 1 which is supposed to act like an overview, into the middle of 2 and 3. IF you continue to want to make a literal chronology of events, then please start showing how the animals are made before Adam in Gen 1 but after in Gen 2, or how the plants are made on day 3 but not there until the man is made in Gen 2.
Gen 1 is not meant to be squeezed into the picture the way you and Cheryl try. It is a differant literary genre designed for a seperate purpose- an overview. Therefore your view leads to the logical conclusion that God gave some command not recorded, but which is vital in understanding Gen 3- just seems abit obscure to take that approach, when we have the prohibition recorded in Gen 2.

Now some of your specific questions…
“Were they BOTH not able to eat from trees of the garden? You tell. Was this incorrect? Was she not given all trees on the earth?”

Yes they were both prohibited from eating the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The plural in Gen 3 of ‘you’ indicates that. Plus they both sinned by eating the fruit, therefore both were not allowed to eat it.

NO she was not given every tree on the earth. They were both given trees and plants with ‘seeds’ to eat. But i am sure that is what you meant anyway.

i will respond more here soon. I just looked at all the comments

gengwell,

can you expand for me why you favour Cheryl’s exegesis of 3:22ff. Do you agree with her that ‘ha’adam’ can only refer to one person?

I appeciate your honesty in discussions. I agree that 3:16 is not related to the banishment but to the marriage. I simply had to refute Cheryl’s position that saids it is.

pinklight,

to me the whole conversation between the serpent and the women is to be understood as deception, not just the part where she sees that the fruit was good. The conversation is a progression from trust in God to rejection of God. Therefore the details in between this sandwich mean something. This is what i have tried to bring out. And therefore God’s goodness in provision is questioned (stinginess). The serprent is tricking Eve into thinking that God is with holding something from her, and it worked, she took the fruit. If she had not questioned God’s faithfulness and goodness then she would not have eaten the fruit. The idea of deception must be understood throughout the whole conversation.

You may not see it this way, but i think you are wrong if you take that stance. If the conversation is not part of leading her astray then what is? What makes her turn? IF there is no indications in the conversation that equal deception, but as you insist she was 100% faithful in answering the serpent correctly, then what made her take the fruit?

pinklight,

let me try and understand your chronology. Maybe this will help our discussion.

1. Adam is given a prohibition about the garden only (Gen 2:16-17)
2. Eve is created oblivious of the above prohibition (gen 2:22-25)
3. Then you flick back to Gen 1. Both are given a command to eat from the trees of the whole earth (1:29)
4. Then both are given a ‘new’ prohibition regarding the forbidden tree and the garden specific (which is the one under discussion)
5. Then you come to Gen 3 and the fall.

Is this a fair assumption of your view?

Now the way i see it to help you.
Gen 1 is a broad ‘overview’ if you like of the creation of the world. Gen 2 is a ‘zoomed’ in version, giving more detail, more precise chronology which is excluded in Gen 1. Contextually therefore, Gen 3 is supposed to flow on from chapter 2, not to have gen 1 inserted in between. Gen 1 is given as a backdrop so to speak, and so should not be read in between Gen 2 and 3.

We know this is the case because in Gen 1 the animals are made before the people. But in Gen 2 they are made after and brought to the man to name them.

In Gen 1, on day three God makes all the plants and vegetation, but in Gen 2, the plants have not sprung up because there is no man to work the field.

In Gen 2, God plants the garden after the creation of the man and before the creation of the woman, but this detail is altogether exluded in Gen 1.

Basicaly my point is, Gen 1 is not intended to be read in between Gen 2 and 3. It doesn’t work, therefore we must attempt to understand it differently. This is why your view is difficult to understand and formulate. In fact, i’m not sure i have ever heard anybody try to understand Gen 1-3 the way this blog does. The scholars definately do not see it this way.

pinklight

you must also keep in mind that the dialogue between the serpent and the women is the context. So when i talk about omission of ‘all’ and ‘yhwh’, and the adding of ‘touching it’, this is because the woman is being deceived through the conversation.
She is being deceived into believing that God is stingy, she is being deceived into thinking that God is harsh. This is the context. PLease remember that. It seems that your comments are not really engaging with the text and context, but more with how i worded things in my answer.

However i do want to re-state, that that does not therefore exclude Eve from guilt. She is equally guilty of abandoning God’s prohibition. We know this because of what happens when she eats- the same as the man, death!

Pinklight,

I am not saying that it is not theoretically possible that God gave a new prohibition to Adam and Eve. As i quoted Richard Hess, we don’t know. My point though is quite simple, we do only have 1 recorded prohibition given to Adam only, therefore exegetically this is the prefered option. Yours (and Cheryl’s) relies on speculation rather than biblical proof. It is safer therefore to go with what we have, not with what we don’t have.

If Eve was correct in quoting God, why don’t her and Adam die when they ‘touch it’? The text explicitly states that their eyes are open after they ‘eat it’ and this is when they die, which is exactly what is for-warned by God to Adam in Gen 2. I hope you have an answer to this one?

Why does Eve ‘covet’ for the fruit? All these little details are important.

Why is Yahweh ommitted? The relational name of God? Is it not because it is his relations with the humans which is being questioned? Again important little insights.

Frankly, your view is exegetically weak. It relies on a non-recorded prohibition. It ignores the hebrew details, and simply speculates more than exegetes.

Lin,

I am also glad to hear that you do not see Gen 3:16 as positive. If this is your’s and gengwell’s view, why is it you never say anything to combat Cheryl when she does say it is positive?

Do you agree that the desire of the woman is ‘against’ her husband?

Again if the banishment is not an issue why is it never communicated that way to Cheryl? For Cheryl’s opinions to work, the banishment (or lack of for Eve) is vital. Once that crumbles her whole view does. For example if Eve was banished her ‘deception’ is not as innocent as Cheryl makes out. This therefore has implication on 1 Tim 2, since the argument is she is a ‘decieved false teacher’ as opposed to a deliberate false teacher. This distinction between deliberate and decieved flows all the way from Gen for Cheryl, to support her exegesis of other passages.

Basically my point is- tell Cheryl you disagree with her if that is what you believe. When everyone stays silent the assuption is you all agree with Cheryl.

gengwell,

I am glad that i was able to resolve at least one issue for you with the Gen 3 narrative. But i guess my question to you is, why do you therefore still believe that Eve was not banished. If the one verse seemingly supporting the non-banishment view is wrong (which it is), what else is there to assume she wasn’t banished. Such a view gives Eve a sin nature seperate to the rest of the bible.

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

What about the nature of sin…

Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

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. Paul makes it clear in Romans that no one seeks God (Rom 3:11), no one does good, not even one (Rom 3:12). Sin makes us dead (Eph 2). So the question must be asked, is Eve included in this. She must be, since she was a sinner and since none of these exclude Eve as having a different sin nature.

Cheryl has given Eve a sin nature that is contrary to scripture by insisting that she was not a ‘threat’. She must therefore be considered in the same way as all people-sinful and therefore included in the banishment. 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. Eve was banished from the garden, she did not simply ‘follow’ her husband.

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.

Conclusion
The definite article does not exclude Eve. It merely re-asserts Adams headship. He is addressed and described primarily because of his role as leader. Eve was a sinner, unworthy of the garden. Her sin nature was the same as Adam, in rebellion to God. She was most definitely a ‘threat’ to the tree of life. She was corrupted by sin.

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. It paints Eve’s sin nature as not serious. It distorts the true meaning of the punishment of Eve and her desire against her husband. But most importantly it attempts to prove that Eve was not banished from the garden. However under scrutiny the view does not hold. The historical position of the church holds. Adam’s headship is re-affirmed, no doubt to the disgust of Evangelical Feminists. But we must be faithful to the bible and do proper exegesis not eisegesis. 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.

But what about the banishment dialogue- Gen 3: 22-24

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’. It is a non-issue to him. The inclusion of the definite article does not seem to make him feel as if the woman is not included in the banishment. It seems that the view that only Adam was banished is unique to Cheryl’s blog, and therefore must carefully be watched.
2. The preceding passage already shows Adams headship. He was created first, Eve was created from and for Adam. Adam was the only one given the prohibition. Adam names his wife. Adam is addressed by God first after the fall, and Adam renames his wife after the fall. All this indicates Adam’s headship over Eve therefore the reference to ha-‘adam only further emphasises his headship. Adam is held as the primary responsibility. IN fact the NT clearly teaches the fall of humanity relies on Adam’s shoulders not on Eve’s.
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. 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. Therefore the conclusion of Cheryl that the definite article has to only refer to the one man is false. Elsewhere around the discussed passage it is simply not the case. ‘Adam’ (man) with the definite article does not have to mean it is referring to one person. Therefore to conclude that Gen 3:22ff can only refer to Adam is simply false. 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.
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.. Gen 5:1 shows us this “This is the book of the generations of Adam (‘adam)…” Note the exclusion of the definite article, but the context reveals that the intention here is not for it to be understood generically. It is referring simply to one man, Adam.

Conclusion
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. The definite article can be used with the intention of meaning more than one person (Gen 1:27, 6:1), as well as the exclusion of the definite article can refer to one person (Gen 5:1). We must conclude therefore that it is grammatically possible and in fact more likely that when ‘the man’ is used in Gen 3:22ff both Adam and Eve are in view. Therefore both are excluded from the garden, and the use of the definite article further highlights the headship of Adam over Eve.