gengwall

Cheryl-“So perhaps we can ask ourselves how Eve was the same as all women and how she was different. Did she operate with a sin nature? Has that sin nature been transferred to all other women? What does the Scripture say?”

Indeed, what does scripture say? You acknowledge that Gen 3:16 says something about wives but that something is not found in the portion of the verse related to Eve. It must, therefore, be in the portion related to Adam. So are you saying that wives, as the daughters of Adam, cursed with his sin nature, will also “rule”? I am curious exactly what it is that you see Gen 3:16 saying about wives and where in the verse you see it said.

I should add that the conversation has evolved a little since then. I am now far more concerned that Cheryl apparently believes that Gen 3:16 has nothing to say about wives. We may have to work backward from there.

Hi pinklight.

My inquiry is not looking for a second witness to Adam’s sin nature, but looking for a second witness to his specific sin of “rule”. At one point waaaaaaay back when, Cheryl had said that for Eve’s “desire” to be sinful, we would need a second witness in scripture. I countered that then we would also need a second witness to Adam’s “rule”. Cheryl’s response is basically two fold.

1. That Adam’s sin nature, exemplified by the apparent inevitability of him eating from the Tree of Life, is a second witness that Adam sinned outside the garden.

2. The existence of male “rule” throughout history is evidence that Adam passed down this trait to men and somehow proves that he himself must have modelled it in his post garden experience.

Cheryl articulates this in post 227. I trust the above is a reasonable synopsis and know Cheryl will correct as needed.

I disagree on all points that this is a second witness that Adam did in fact commit the specific sin of “rule” outside the garden. Now, don’t get me wrong. I do think Adam did it. But I find no scriptural “witness” that he did other than God’s audible prophecy in Gen 3:16. I find God’s verbal utterance sufficient witness all on its own.

Cheryl – “Make sense?”

No.

Unless you would like to conceed that Adam’s “rule” is equally applicable to both his sons and daughters. Otherwise we are still left with no prediction regarding wives and a universal prediction regarding husbands. Do you really claim that wives are completely left out of the Gen 3:16 equation?

Cheryl – “The second witness would be his sin nature and the fact that men all around the world seem to have inherited the tendency to want to “rule” in the same way.”

It is this kind of reasoning that is really disturbing to me. You again are asserting that Adam’s “rule” is attested to by males everwhere – i.e. that Gen 3:16 is predictive of the entire male gender and its conduct not only in marriage but also in society as a whole – yet you insist that Eve’s “desire” applies to her and her alone. How can that be? How can the Adam side of Gen 3:16 be universally about males, especially in marriage, but the Eve side of Gen 3:16 be only about Eve and have nothing to do with any other females in marriage or anywhere else?

Cheryl – “I have a real longing to be with my husband. The sexual part is not the focus for when and if that leaves when we are really old, I will still desire him.”

And you don’t recognize that as spiritual? What physical process do you envision is in play other than a sexual one?

Cheryl – “Looks like we are still discussing on this post. Alrighty then, I’m game.”

I have no illusions that Eve usurped Adam’s authority, so I think this is still the proper place to discuss my particular issues.

Just a quick note to back up Lin’s argument. Cheryl – if the “desire” or “turning” has no spiritual component, is it is all related to the physical, are you not then supporting the idea that it is sexual desire? What other physical desire did she have for husband other than a sexual desire?

Cheryl – “So is the “rule” that God predicted Adam would take over Eve a good thing?”

Certainly not. I am certain I have made that clear.

Cheryl – “Have a good sleep gengwall. For your night time thinking perhaps you can ponder this: When God predicted Adam’s rule over Eve, did God command Adam to do this or did God commend Adam for this “rule”?”

Of course not. That would be a comp position. I’m really not sure where you are coming from. You and I have never had differing views on the particulars of Adam’s “rule”. My only investigation is if there is a second witness to it.

I am so #$^$(#^% about this health care deform right now I can’t think about much else. So my main response will have to wait.

So – I will address the three witnesses from Gen 3:22-24……after this break. LOL It’s bed time. I’ll pick it up tomorrow.

I’ll focus here.

Was my Biblical evidence for Adam’s sin nature of no value?

I accept your argument about Adam’s sin nature (something I never questioned) but I am not convinced (or clear) it is a witness of his specific sin of “rule”.

Two comments.

1. I do not believe Eve had a sin nature. That doesn’t mean I believe she was incapable of sinning. I would like to continue exploring whether or not “desire” was sinful, but if you require a second witness to that sin before you would even consider it was “more than neutral”, we are at a dead end. That is why I am attempting to compare it to Adam’s sin of “rule” which I am not yet convinced there is a second (or third) witness to. We maybe can focus in on the witnesses to Adam’s future sin in vss. 22-24, although this discussion over the conjunctions intrigues me too.

2. I said: “As suspicious as I am of “desire” or “turning” as a virtue, I find the thought of it being relatively inconsequential blather on God’s part to be unfathomable.” Now, what part of “on God’s part” makes you think “relatively inconsequential blather” is directed at you. LOL.

“I think Eve’s been cleared of false charges ;P”

Boy, not to my thinking.

Cheryl – you must type (and think) at superhuman speeds. I would like to continue point by point, but my goodness, there is so much to respond to. Shall we carry on in detail (our post length could grow at an exponential rate), move on to other topics, or can we focus on maybe just a point or two of your choosing. There is a lot to choose from considering I think we disagree about something in almost every phrase being discussed. Well, maybe not that “rule” is bad, but everything else. So, what will it be?

Have we considered this – what is the significance “the east” in the placements of the cherubims and flaming sword? I think it has always been assumed that this was at the only entrance to the garden and therefore it kept Adam (and subsequently, Eve) out of the garden completely. But the text doesn’t explicitly say this. It could be interpreted to mean that the cherubims and sword were placed at a location in the garden close to the Tree of Life to protect only it. In that case, even if Eve had stayed behind, as it were, she would have had no access anyway. It also could mean that only a small protion of the garden, maybe only encompassing the Tree of Life, was guarded and the rest was turned to wasteland. If that were the case, then Eve really didn’t follow Adam so much as get stuck with him. I don;t know. Some thoughts to consider.

Well God talked about a future rebellion so this isn’t quite accurate and to think that Adam brought on us a sin nature that he didn’t share with us in, doesn’t seem to be what the Scriptures say. The “old man” or “old Adam” always refers to the nature of sin, no just one act of one specific man.

I think the first portion of your response is well summed up in the above. First, I certainly believe Adam shared the same nature of sin with us. But, that nature stems from his original sin. Any post garden sin may be inevitable, but the bible seems unconcerned with it. Now, I think you disagree. I think you are arguing that his future rebellion, i.e. his post garden sin, IS declared somewhere in Gen 3:22-24. Do you consider that the second witness? I disagree that that portends a future rebellion. The text specifically says two things about Adam in those verses:

1. That he “is become as one of us, to know good and evil”. But Eve also gained that knowledge so, while being spoken specifically about Adam in vs. 22, it is not a condition unique to Adam. If this portends rebellion, then Eve is as susceptible.

2. That he may “put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”. But this is not a sin.

I see nothing in verses 22-24 that talks about a future rebellion, only godly justifications for kicking him out. So, I still have not found the elusive second witness.

Now on to the specific sin of “rule”.

God predicted the sin which presumably was already in his heart due to his sin nature. If Adam did not sin in this way, then God was a false prophet. Therefore we know that Adam did sin and God was indeed a true prophet.

So you acknowledge that there is no second witness to this sin accusation. We know it is true simply because God prophesied it in Gen 3:16 and God is not a false profit. I agree! I would contend the same would be true of any sin Eve was prophesied to have.

But you follow…

God predicted his sin. But the words of God to Eve may not mean sin at all. There is a good and a bad definition. If God provides nothing else then the term, we cannot automatically provide the meaning of “sin” unless there is something else that requires us to charge her with sin.

I agree. But hypothetically, if we could demonstrate that this desire was sinful, would you agree that we could conclude that Eve was guilty of it even though there is no second witness, based solely on God’s prophesy. (You seem pretty convinced that Eve’s desire is not sinful, so I suspect you have no problem afirming my hypothetical).

I await your conclusion to the earlier comment.

oops – that’s “why would the next conjunction of ‘and’ to ‘he will rule over you’…” and so on.

Because the words “yet” or “but” provide purpose for connecting these unrelated ideas.

The unrelated ideas being her sorrow or toil and her desire, right? So you are saying that a “normal” conjunction of “and” would require the two ideas being joined to logically follow one from the other or otherwise be related. I guess that makes sense. So why would the next conjunction to “he rule over you” be appropriate? How is his rule related to or logically follow her desire if it is a neutral or good thing? Or do you not agree with “and” at this point either?

Our sin “nature” is passed on to us from Adam because of his original sin in the garden, not any perpetual sinning he may or may not have participated in once he left. His death is due to that original sin, and so is ours. Adam could have been sinless outside of the garden and that would not have prevented either his sin caused death or our sin caused inheritance. Every scriptural reference to Adam and sin, in my view, is related to his original sin. The Job reference is no exception. Nor Hosea. In fact, as Lin points out, the only thing we know for certain about Adam’s actual actions after he left the garden is that he had sex with his wife. Simply put, nowhere in scripture does it say Adam sinned after he left the garden. It is assumed based on his sin nature. You assume it, and so do I. But scripture doesn’t explicitly “witness” to that fact. (BTW – Job had this inherited sin nature but scripture tells us he was a blameless man. Same with Noah. Something to think about when considering Adam)

More importantly, scripture does not witness to the specific sin of “rule” over his wife, which is all we are concerned about here. The real issue is not if Adam generally sinned, but if he engaged in the specific sin of “rule” as Gen 3:16 describes. The same is true of Eve. I am not interested in the breadth and depth of her sin outside of the garden, but only if she committed a sinful “desire/turning toward/against” Adam. If I can not find a second witness to Adamic “rule”, I also do not expect a second witness to Eve’s “desire”.

Now, I understand what you are saying. You have no proof that Eve committed sin outside the garden and therefore “desire” can’t be a sin. The “Eve was sinless” argument is an argument from silence, but I am inclined to believe that where scripture is silent, it is actually saying something. In other words, I agree with you on the principle of the second witness. But that still leaves the dilemma of Adam’s “rule”. There is no second witness to this charge, yet we know it is true. So either it is an exception to the second witness requirement, or we are not seeing the second witness. I am curious to hear your thoughts on that.

Finally, I simply can not fathom God’s prediction of Eve’s future behavior as being “neutral”. Not in this verse, in the midst of this passage, at the culmination of this chapter of scripture. I refuse to accept that we are making much ado about nothing when discussing this “desire”. My mind can only envision something that has to be either perpetually virtuous or ultimately sinful (for even if it is only a little sinful, or momentarily sinful, or circumstantially sinful, it still describes an ultimately sinful Eve). To say it is inconsequential, i.e. literally nothing, denies it is an action or behavior at all. If it were a condition, or a temptation, or something passive where Eve is concerned, we could make the case that it was universally amoral. But if it is an active thing that Eve participates in, and more importantly, if it affects or is directed toward or against another human being, it has to have a moral component, does it not?

Ps – My use of “indictment” was maybe a poor choice of words. On the other hand, it is hard to find a universally acceptable word for God’s narrative without running into trouble with women at some point. It seems we can’t use terms like “sentence”, “verdict”, “indictment”, “punishment”, “curse”, “condemnation”, “consequence” or any other word that may imply that Eve was somehow responsible or accountable. I will still search for a better word, but until I expand my vocabulary, just understand that what I meant is that God ain’t saying nothing good to nobody from Gen 3:14 on.

Re: “The Truth Project”. Have you viewed the whole thing? I think you will have an even bigger problem with the marriage section than you envision (better have your subordination arguments at the ready). But overall it is pretty interesting, albeit kind of “preaching to the choir”. I didn’t find anything new or enlightening per se at this point in my Christian journey. It seems best directed at seekers and new believers. But that’s just me.

For the future. Eve’s “desire” is a topic about which I want to have an open position thread in my blog. What I mean by “open position thread” is that it is just a place for people to post their position and positive arguments with no (or only passing, position supporting) rebuttal. Certainly, I would hope that you and others who comment here would contribute. I suspect this discussion will help both of us tighten our arguments.

This interlinear breaks down each phrase into it’s component parts so you can see that the “yet” and “and” are the same word when they are broken away the attached words. They are both the Hebrew word “w”.

I agree. So why do you think that “yet” is more appropriate than “and” in “w your desire…” (actually: “and/yet to your husband shall be your desire/turning”)?

LOL!! gengwall, you are the very first to charge me with “blathering”.

Double LOL. Read my comment again. I wasn’t charging YOU with “blathering”, I was claiming that you were charging God with “blathering”. I’ll mount a serious reply to you comments once I stop laughing…

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

Your statement, while true, is not a scriptural second witness to Adam’s post garden sin.

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

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

Is not Job referring to Adam’s actions in the garden still – his attempts to “cover up” for his rebellion, and to justify and blame shift? Gen 3:16 is predictive of events post fall, not mid fall. I still see no second witness in support of Gen 3:16 that points to Adam sinning outside of the garden.

I believe that it is no less than neutral

I think this is an argument of convenience. Seriously, is there anything “neutral” in God’s indictment from 3:14 on? Sin is the central topic here and 3:16b describes literal actions that Adam and Eve will actively engage in. Is God prone to add filler in this narrative? Can the actions of either Adam or Eve really be neutral in relation to each other in the context of the impacts of thier sin on their subsequent lives? As suspicious as I am of “desire” or “turning” as a virtue, I find the thought of it being relatively inconsequential blather on God’s part to be unfathomable.

If indeed it can be proven that the statement cannot be positive and that this is “sin”, then the false prophet argument also holds true. But God also has consistently given us a second witness regarding sin. We have lots of evidence that Adam was a known sinner…

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

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

I will grant you this (I only put it in to influence more to my side 🙂 ) but you did not answer my main question. Do you view Eve’s “desire” as a virtue?

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

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

OK, so if the action is by definition sinful, then we don’t need a second witness, especially if God is the speaker. But we don’t have a clear definition of “desire”, do we. It is positive, to be sure, in Song of Solomon. But it is clearly negative and sinful in Genesis 4:7, where, as in Gen 3:16, God is the speaker and He is being predictive of future behavior. If the correct translation of Gen 3:16 is “your turning will be against your husband”, we can certainly claim this particular instance is sinful, can we not? So I would suggest that we need not find a further witness for Eve, but only determine if the nature of her “desire” is by definition sinful. Then your false prophet argument holds for Eve as well as Adam.

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

I view Gen.3:16 in a different manner – that it is not only a marriage predictive, but predictive of human relationships.

Fair enough, but that still leaves the question: is it telling us only what is bad about males in human relationships and only what is good about females? That would seem quite inconsistent since “all have sinned”.

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

It seems you have missed my point. I belive that Gen 3:16, in part, is telling us that all males will be inclined to rule. That doesn’t mean they will all succumb to that fleshly inclination. As I have said here many times, I constantly feel that sinful pull on me to “rule” over my wife, but I fight it. God isn’t telling us what will ineveitably happen to every man, He is telling us what the male nature will be.

Now, it seems logical to me that God is also telling us what the female nature will be. But in context, in the midst of God’s chastisement of the two humans, in the midst of curses and future consequences, in the midst of a passage where God has nothing good to say to anybody except the promise of the coming Messiah, I have a hard time believing that God wants to discuss only the future good inclinations of females in comparison to the future bad inclinations of males. It makes no sense.

Perhaps this would be a test of the second witness rule.

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

Is there anywhere in the Scripture where we can use the “male rule” as a focus on the “norm” for marriage in the fallen world?

I think you are implying that there is. It is true that patriarchy is the dominant institution in the OT, but it isn’t protrayed as negative. So I don’t think you can claim this as a witness to Gen 3:16. It isn’t until the NT that men are portrayed negatively for domineering “rule” and given a new command in relation to their wives – to “love them as Christ loved the church” and “to live with them in an understanding way”.

And if there is one or more scriptures that would fit, where is the woman’s weakness listed where it is clear that there is a pattern and it is negative?

And I think you are implying here that there is not. Although I would disagree on the face – there are plenty of bad women in the OT and “feminine wiles” are constantly warned against – I also don’t think this is necessarily a witness to Gen 3:16. As I have often said, biblical history is not biblical teaching. Again, I think we need to turn to the NT to see commands to women that turn them from sinful actions toward their husbands. We see such commands in the same passages as those tot he husbands. Here women are told to “submit” and “respect”. You may refuse to recognize a connection with Gen 3:16 in these instructions, but again that leaves us with this very lopsided testimony:

Gen 3:16 tells us what is bad about men, and Eph 5 and 1 Peter 3 tell men how to correct that problem; but Gen 3:16 tells us what is good about women and the parallel instructions in Eph 5 and 1 Peter 3 have nothing to do with any of that.

As I have stated, I just don’t buy that scripture is that disconnected.

Hello all. As I said to Cheryl personally, I was not insulted in any way in our ongoing conversation. I was just frustrated and needed to walk away for a while. It was just the male in me. LOL.

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

I guess maybe this is the crux of the matter. We have been arguing without a base concensus on the situation we are arguing about. Here is what I see, and then I will leave it at that for now.

Both Jesus and Paul refer to Genesis when specifically discussing marriage. Paul even refers to the fall in 1st Timothy 2 when specifically (in our egal view) talking about a married couple. And Gen 3:16 certainly is talking about the relationship between husband and wife. Just as Genesis 2:24 has been considered the “template” for godly marriage, Gen 3:16 has been considered by many (and I thought, everyone) as the “template” for marriage in a fallen world. The argument, I thought, was not whether or not Gen 3:16 was predictive of men’s and women’s behavioral inclinations as fallen husbands and wives, but what specifically that behavior would look like. Boy was I wrong.

I don’t think we can have it both ways. Either Gen 3:16 is predictive about ONLY Adam and Eve’s relationship or it is predictive about all human marriage. I can’t fathom it being mostly about Adam and Eve, sort of about all marriage, or the worst of them all, all about husbands but only a little about wives. For me, Gen 3:16 is as much about all marriage as Gen 2:24.

I thought everyone believed this general view of Gen 3:16, regardless of what actions they believed would result and how godly or otherwise those actions were. I guess I was wrong. I guess some people, while viewing Adam as fully representative of the worst inclinations in husbands, view Eve as only marginally representative of wives, and even in that, only representative of their good inclinations. If so, Gen 3:16 really doesn’t tell us anything conclusive about human marriage. The only conclusive thing it tells us is how bad husbands are inclined to be. We are left without any predictive guidance from God on any other marriage dynamics.

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

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

Still not buying it. Adam, on the other hand, is universally like all husbands who bring only bad things to marriage? Where is the verse that describes the good things husbands bring to marriage? Where is the verse that describes the bad things wives bring to marriage? This still leaves the situation at “good spouse, bad spouse” in God’s only predictive statement about marriage as it relates to the fall.

it answers my question but causes quite a crisis of rationality. She did choose to sin once even though it was in ignorance. But that ignorance has been removed as her eyes were opened just as Adam’s were. You believe that if she had stayed in the garden, that loss of innocence would have actually helped her guard against further sin. Maybe so. But it is far fetched to believe that to be true when she lived for hundreds of years in a quickly deteriorating world of sin under the harsh rule of her tyrant husband. I find the notion that she never sinned again in those hundreds of years to be quite unbelievable. Which brings us back to 3:16 – wouldn’t any future sin of Eve’s be as apparent to God as Adam’s sinful “rule” and couldn’t 3:16 therefore be just as predictive of Eve’s sinful behavior as it is of Adam’s. Thoughts to ponder.