pinklight

Cheryl:
There is no historical interpretation that Teshuqa means turning away from God. If you take the meaning of turning toward that fits in really well with Eve leaving but to add to the meaning something that isn’t in the text, one would have to go beyond the Scripture.

Lin,
Even IF certain women have a “bad desire” (which results in them turning away from God and more to their husbands) because of their combined sin nature from Adam and Eve’s desire, what you are claiming about “Eve’s desire” still is NOT in the text itself on her desire. The text alone on Eve’s desire tells us nothing about all other women because she did not have a sin nature and it because there’s no way to prove that her desire was sin. But if we combine texts of Adam’s sin nature and Eve’s desire then we can come to other possible conclusions but again these conclusions about all other women beside Eve that can be made do NOT hinge alone on the text of Eve’s desire.

We cannot add a turning away from God just by this word. We would have to have additional text to convey that meaning. So while I can accept that the word can mean a turning toward, I leave the challenge where the word must mean a turning away from. I haven’t seen it and I challenge anyone to show me the evidence.

I agree totally.

Cheryl:
“…and the fact that men all around the world seem to have inherited the tendency to want to “rule” in the same way.”

gengwall:
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,
It does seem to be the case that men SEEM to have a tendency to WANT to “rule”.

gengwall,
Gen 3:16 is at least predictive it SEEMS of the tendency but not necessarily conduct.

Lin,
Combine Adam’s sin nature with Eve’s desire and walla, I can see a possiblity of women desiring their husbands but in a bad way, but this desire would not apply to Eve since she is not offspring of Adam. But this isn’t to say that all women would have this “bad desire” since they can have the deisre and if not affected by the sin nature it can be “good” as was Eve’s.

I hate to say this…but longing to be with our husbands MORE than Christ is a sin. It becomes idolatry. We must be careful because this is what comps teach. It is easy to take a good thing and turn it into an idol.

When/if women (Adam’s daughters/offspring) long/desire for their husbands it is not the same as when Eve (Adam’s wife not offspring) desired her husband. Eve does not have the sin nature that women have from Adam. But if women long/desire their husbands (not due to sin nature) then it can be the same desire Eve had for her husband cause it’s not due to sin. If it doesn’t come from the sin nature then it’s not a sinful desire but this is not to say that a sin only comes from sin nature like Eve’s eating out of being deceived.

And you’re not possibly saying that Eve longed for her husband more than God are you?

My point was why did God have to warn her about something she was supposedly already doing that was good?

Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.

Why are you making the presumption/asking if God warned her about her own desire? Just because Adam’s rule is told her as a warning doesn’t mean her desire is also. God wasn’t warning her about her desire. Though her toil in childbearing would increase YET she would desire her husband and (the warning) he would rule over her.

K, one more…

All consequences of the fall are a RESULT of sin. Eve’s choice to ‘turn’ toward her husband has a bad consequence whether it is sin or not.

Hi Lin,
Eve’s turning or desire is not a consequence of the fall (her having once been deceived but no longer deceived and Adam having rebelled against God). Eve’s choice to turn to or desire her husband has no consequence since Adam’s choice to rule over her is solely his own problem (with his sin nature), not hers.

I’ve gotta go! Be back as soon as I can!

Wouldn’t his “rule” be a second witness to his sin nature and a third witness would be the reason why God threw him out of the garden. Rule over the woman and reaching out his hand also for the other tree are both witness to his sin nature. It’s not like “rule” really needs a second witness since it is a witness itself to his nature of sin. Right? “Rule” (due to nature of rebellion) is a witness to sin.

Three witnesses of Adam’s sin nature:

Sin of rebellion
Rule
Reaching forth his hand also for the other tree

Cheryl:
As far as a spiritual connection – it just isn’t in the text. Eve isn’t turning to Adam as her Messiah or her Lord. I believe that attaching a charge of sin to a text that has no charge of sin is a big mistake”

Lin:
Cheryl, this makes no sense in the context after the fall.

When you put it this way, Lin it sounds like “This makes no sense in the context of when both sinned out of rebellion”. So I’d word it rather as “this makes no sense in the context after Adam rebels against God and Eve was deceived but came out of her deception. And then it can make sense, no?

The second witness would be his sin nature

Wouldn’t his “rule” be a second witness to his sin nature and a third witness would be the reason why God threw him out of the garden. Rule over the woman and reaching out his hand also for the other tree are both witness to his sin nature. It’s not like “rule” really needs a second witness since it is a witness itself to his nature of sin. Right? “Rule” (due to nature of rebellion) is a witness to sin.

It is so sad to see that the original fall has been rewritten to make the man to be the one who was sinned against by the woman and the woman is the one to blame so that even her desire for him has become a personal attack against the man.

Oh ofcourse! Another reversal! Since Adam is the one who sins against Eve by ruling over her, she has to be charged with sinning against him by giving him the fruit and having an “insubordinate desire”.

Adam unjustifiably blamed God and the woman for his sin right to God’s face. And Ortlund, like Adam, blames Eve? Well, what’s there to say?

Instead of turning away from the bar of God’s justice in bitterness and despair, Adam turns to his wife and says, “I believe God’s promise. He has not cast us adrift completely…I believe God, and I honor you. (pg 110 RBM&W)

Just as the biblical teaching on who’s to help who is reversed in comp thought – it’s the woman who needs Adam’s help (since he’s the leader and she the follower) rather than Adam who needed the woman’s help (made for him as a helper) it’s also reversed who turns to the other partner! It was Eve who turned to Adam as God said would happen and not Adam to Eve! What else has been reversed I wonder?

So why is it that complementarians like Raymond Ortlund charge Eve with taking a forbidden role in leadership? I submit that it is because their theology is far more focused on man than it is on God.

Yes!!

The paradox of Genesis 2 is also seen in the fact that the woman was made from the man (her equality) and for the man (her inequality).

So being made “for” the man shows an inequality? That it was not good that Adam was alone and needed her shows that he’s inequal to her?
How come comp thinking has turned the biblical teaching of who needed help from who completely around saying that rather than the man needing the woman (created for him as a helper) that she needed him?

But is this Biblical fact or complementarian fiction?

I like this wording 🙂

She was willing to continue a loving relationship with him so that they could together fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

Reasons why she left the garden:

Her desire for her husband
His rule over her
She followed God’s command to be fruitful

🙂

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

Hey Cheryl, thanks alot for all of this on Eve’s “desire”. It’s taking me some time to get it to “sink down”, but I getten it. It’s just so new and therefore weird/different ;P And I’m willing to disprove your argument wrong, but seriously don’t think it can be done!

Hurray! Go Eve (and Cheryl)!

He’s not shown teaching “Biblical Manhood” to his sons Cain and Abel.

LOL

If I am wrong about the “sin” thing then it only takes a second witness that this is a “sin” issue for Eve. And if she practiced sin where did this sin nature come from?

There is no way that I can conclude that her desire was predictive of her sin. I cannot find a way to prove it. (Though conclusivley I’m undecided as to whether or not this “desire” would also be predictive of future women).

On Adam’s rule, since he was a rebel and it was a warning to Eve, and he continued in his rebellion, I don’t think there’s a way to escaped the conclusion that his “rule” was a matter of sin.

“You are free to eat from ANY TREE IN THE GARDEN; 17 but you MUST NOT EAT FROM the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it YOU WILL SURELY DIE.”

“Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
“You will not surely die,”

Had Eve know the command that was given to Adam she could have EASILY seen what the serpent was doing to that command.

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”
2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’ ”
4 “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

The serpent’s desire was to murder Eve – while Adam was with her, he was refering to the command given to Adam before woman was created…(compare the serpent’s exact words with the command God gave to Adam), so his desire was to murder Eve, cause he knew that Adam knew the command God gave him.

Adam let the devil murder his wife.

John 8
39 “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would do the things Abraham did. 40As it is, you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the things your own father does.”

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

The devil murdered Eve (not Adam who knew better).
The Pharisees were the serpent’s seed. And they wanted to kill him.

The serpent was cursed FOR (!) deceiving Eve yet somehow big ‘ol punishment has been assigned to Eve. ?

Now what was Eve punished with again for being deceived??

LOL!

I don’t see the text giving Eve’s desire for her husband any negative meaning. There is no negative meaning assinged within the context. And also factoring in her state (unlike Adam’s rebellious one) there’s no reason to assume it had a negative meaning.

What you are saying is that scripture tells us that men are universally inclined to be tyrants and women are universally inclined to be martyrs. That the male default response in marriage is one of “rule” BUT the female default response in marriage is this “desire” which equates to long-suffering kindness toward their husbands. That the result, for marriage, of Adam’s bringing of sin to ALL the world is this general orientation: menare bad, women are good. Moreover, any change from the “status quo” of patriarchy happens only males depart from their default badness or females depart from their natural goodness. If equality happens, it is only in the rare case that men overcome their overwhelming, default evilness. If female dominance happens, it is only in the rare case when women deny their overwhelming, default goodness.

gengwall, I do not believe this at all. See my last comment #154

Eve was not the same as all women of the world since she wasn’t Adam’s daughter. (She was deceived not in rebellion like Adam, didn’t have a rebellious nature) Therefore though I can see how Adam’s rule over Eve can be applied to Adam sons, I cannot see how Eve’s desire for her husband can be applied to Adam’s daughter’s.