Satan was the first to sin as we know. So, God punished the entirety of humanity for thousands of years for the disobedience of two individuals foreknowing humanity would never be able to then and would never be able to now make the grade on our own. It’s a bit hazy and I’m not understanding it fully because as I’ve said, I’m not well versed on the subject of Adam and Eve.
I guess it all comes back to the fact that satan was the first to sin. We, as the family God wants back have to go through this life and it’s trials trusting in God and Him only while waiting until iniquity has reached it’s fullness. Please, Cheryl and anyone else who would care to: help me on this.

There are only two acts by God that deal with guilt and curses and not three as tradition has taught us.

This is very important.

God determines the same enmity, hostility or antagonism between the serpent’s seed and the Messiah (the seed of the woman).

That’s heavy.

So God’s first words about the future of the woman is God’s revealed will that places her on the right side of a spiritual conflict. There is no curse here in this verse at all. But what about the next direct words of God to the woman? Does the woman then suffer a special “punishment” from God? Let’s look at verse 16.

So next we should expect to read something like, “because you were deceived you cannot teach in church. ;P

kw,

God foreseeing that Adam would sin made sure that all of us came through him after his sin so that all of us would be in the same boat of inherited sin and thus all of us followed that nature and all have sinned.

Galatians 3:22–23 (NASB)
22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed.

What this plan of God’s did was to make sure that we would all be on an equal footing – all needing God’s grace. If some of us had been born perfect before Adam fell and some had been born after Adam fell, then there would be some who would have their perfection and their works to their credit. But God has no favorites. He wanted all of us to need Him and to gain salvation in the same way. Because sin entered the world and all of us have participated in that sin all of us are forced to come to Him through the same narrow way. We must come through faith in Jesus so that there will be no boasting that any of us made it through works.

While it seems like an unfair thing that God brought us through a sinful man so that even without having committed Adam’s sins we would all be prone to sin and “shut up under sin” but God’s plan makes sure that there are no favorites. All are under sin. All come to Him in the same way. All need Him for none of us has righteousness that would “earn” salvation. God’s plan is perfect and I believe that in eternity future we will all understand God’s plan perfectly so that we can give Him praise for what He has done.

pinklight,
You said:

So next we should expect to read something like, “because you were deceived you cannot teach in church. ;P

Well surely this is what some have come to read in the Scriptures. Deception seems to create a category of the permanently impaired. This gives no opportunity for God’s grace and it makes God seem like an unfair judge who punishes the deceived rather than the outright rebellious one.

This all reminds me of the one who is still roaming around looking for whom he may devour. He still distorts God’s word, looking to bring people into bondage and using God’s word for bondage is his favorite trick. When we have our eyes opened and we are aware of his tricks and we know and understand scripture, we are armed and ready for his attacks so that we can send him running. Satan will flee when we stand up to him with the truth of God’s word.

strange, I seem to remember in the OT sacrificial system that there is a sacrifice for every kind of sin, except willful, deliberate sin. Isn’t that what Adam did? So shouldn’t that help us correct the whole “deceived-is-worse” mentality?

lmb,

You are right about the deliberate, willful sin. It was called sinning with a “high hand”. A “high hand” is defiance against God which is what makes it rebellion.

There was a guilt offering for those who sinned unintentionally. The sin of breaking God’s commands because of deception would fall into this category. You are very right in that God’s own testimony it that sinning defiantly with full knowledge is judged differently and more harshly than sinning in deception. For some reason the church seems to be confused about this matter when it comes to women.

Cheryl,

To follow on with this post (and Eve’s banishment) i will post my reasons in pieces here. Comment freely

So why should we believe that Eve was banished from the garden with Adam.

Cheryl does not believe this to be the case. She believes that the definite article in verses 22-24 of Gen 3 exclude the possibility of Eve being included in the banishment.

Cheryl has said that Eve was ‘deceived’ and Adam sinned ‘wilfully’ (I agree), but Cheryl’s conclusion therefore is that she was no longer a threat to the tree of life.

Cheryl has also told me that although Eve did leave the reason is because her ‘desire is for her husband’ (3:16). Essentially she is fulfilling this prophecy by leaving the garden. Correct me if I am wrong on any of this Cheryl.

What about the bible- what does it say? I will look at some exegetical issues as well.

Lets begin in chapter 3 focusing first on the conversation between Eve and the serpent.
Cheryl believes that although Eve’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to her only, since Adam had already been told what not to eat (Gen 2:17), it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam.

Problem-
1.we only have I recorded instance of God’s command not to touch the tree of knowledge. This was given to Adam only (Eve was not created). Therefore the question is raised, how did Eve know. Either Adam told her or God told her. Since we have no recording of God speaking directly and only to Eve, it is far safer to go with the text we have. It is better to assume that Adam told Eve the prohibition not God. Therefore we conclude that Eve did not quote the prohibition correctly. She dropped ‘any’ from “we may eat from the fruit of (any) tree in the garden… This is an important omission since it already shows that God seemingly isn’t as generous as he first was. Next Eve adds ‘neither shall you touch it’ which is not in the recorded account we have of God’s actual words. This too is important for it now shows that God is crueller than before. So the serpent’s crafty question has begun to make Eve believe that God first of all is ‘stingy’ and second of all he is a harsh God, not even being allowed to touch the fruit. Now we know that it wasn’t the ‘touching’ of the fruit that caused the fall but the ‘eating’, (Gen 3:6-7) which is precisely what is predicted in Gen 2. So Eve was not correct by telling the serpent they couldn’t even touch it.
Also there is another problem with Cheryl’s view namely that during God’s judgement on Adam God directly refers to the dialogue between himself and Adam in chapter 2. God said “of which I commanded YOU, ‘you shall not eat’. This is not said to Eve because God didn’t give her the direct command. The blame here is given to Adam as the one given the prohibition but who worse than Eve, still rejected it. Therefore we must conclude that God did not give a new command to Eve, or even if he did give one to both (see below for reason) Adam is still held as the major responsible partner. It is not good enough to assume something into the text which can not be supported.
An important note- egalitarians are not even agreed on this point. For example in ‘Discovery Biblical Equality’, Richard Hess said this “the reader never learns how the woman received the information that she cites to the snake”.(pg 89) If Cheryl truly believes that Eve was given a specific revelation she should be willing to stand up against other egalitarians to say that they are wrong. It is not only comps who believe that Adam must have reported the prohibition to Eve.

2. The narrative also shows Eve’s ‘desire’ to become wise (Gen 3:6). The word here desire is the same that is used in the Ten commandments- translated do not ‘covet’(Ex 20:17). This is not a ‘good’ thing. Her desire for the fruit is negative showing her rejection of God’s truth. No doubt though, that it was the serpents trickery that led her to that point. We just must be careful to exclude Eve from any involvement in the account, and therefore come to the conclusion that Eve is innocent. She was deceived but she is guilty of desiring wisdom which was not for her. She acted against God’s command and took the fruit.

3. Also there is a grammatical problem with Cheryl’s view. When Eve quotes what God said the ‘You’ is plural right through verses 1-5. For example the serpent said “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat…” Eve replies verse 3 “but God did say, You shall not eat…”
   The ‘you’ is plural consistent throughout. Therefore if Cheryl wishes to be consistent, God’s ‘new’ prohibition that is given (which is not recorded) is given to both Adam and Eve, not just Eve. Therefore Cheryl must maintain that it wasn’t only Eve who was given this command, but both. But considering the only recorded prohibition we have is in chapter 2, it is far better exegetically to stick to the text, and not to an assumption that God gave a new command which is not recorded.

4 The omission of Yahweh in verse 1-5. Chapter 1 of Gen uses the name ‘Elohim’ for God as he created the world. In chapter 2, though we read LORD God (yhwh elohim). Why is this? This name is used consistently through chapter 2 and 3, except in the verses between the serpent and Eve.
It is interesting to note what Yahweh means. It is the covenantal or relational name of God (Ex 6:3), where as Elohim is not. This is the name by which God reveals himself to Israel at Mount Sinai. Therefore by introducing Yahweh in the passage which is now more relational between God and people we can see the emphasis of the writer. God is not only creator, but he is personal, relational with humanity. So why then the omission in Chapter 3:1-5. No doubt because these are the very verses where God’s ‘relational’ aspect is being challenged. The serpent knows he is God, but he wants to lure the woman away from believing that God cares about her. He tricks Eve into thinking God is restricting her. The narrator here has given an insight into the significance of this conversation by omitting Yahweh. The serpent wants Eve to abandon the relational God, and so she does. She doesn’t obey Yahweh and eats the fruit.
But immediately Yahweh Elohim is re-introduced into the story when God comes to the garden (3:8) and continues on through the rest of the narrative.

5. There is nothing in Gen 3 to make us think that Eve’s sin nature was different to Adam’s as some on this blog would like to suggest. In fact, the opposite is true. We are told that ‘both’ their eyes were open (3:7). They ‘both’ sewed fig leaves together in an attempt to hide their shame and nakedness (3:7). They ‘both’ hid from God in the garden after the fall (3:8). All of these actions which of course are a result of sin now entering the world are administered both by the man and the woman. The woman’s sinful nature responds exactly the way the man’s does. She is ashamed, she hides, she attempts to cover herself. There is nothing in this passage to make us think that Eve’s sinful nature is different to the man. Both are equally the same. Both ate from the tree which was prohibited, therefore both rejected the supremacy of God and his law. Although Eve was lured into sinning, the result is the same, rejection of God’s command and subsequent punishment. It is also important to note that the promised punishment for eating (death) is applied to both Adam and Eve. She is equally culpable before the Holy God.

Summary
The account of the fall shows a few things.
1. The serpent deceived Eve. This is consistent with NT teaching as well (2 Cor 11:3)
2. Eve is still guilty. She abandoned God’s prohibition, fell from perfection and is therefore sinful or has a sin nature.
3. The text of 3:1-5 disallows for the assumption to be made that God gave a new and different prohibition to the one he gave to Adam only. It is also grammatically incorrect even if one wishes to believe that God gave a new prohibition, that it was given to Eve only. This whole view is based on assumption, not biblical evidence.
4. God re-enforces himself that the prohibition was only given to Adam in the judgement (3:17)
5. The reaction of both sinful parties is identical, therefore 2 separate sin natures can not be assumed from the passage.

Now what about Cheryl’s assumption that Eve left the garden (so not banished) because of Gen 3:16. The verse said this
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

And Cheryl therefore believes that Eve left because of her desire for him. I will show that this is a wrong assumption and does not fit with what the verse means.

1. First of all, we need to remember that this verse is within the corpus of punishment and curse. Therefore to assume that anything in these verses is ‘positive’ neglects the context. I say this to comps as well, since some believe that this verse is a remedy to the fall (that the husband shall rule over wives). This is wrong. This is a judgment on Eve and Adam therefore nothing here should be considered positive. Eve’s desire is not positive, nor is the husbands rule.
2. The above translation does not correctly translate the ‘ ‘el’ or ‘for’ your husband. It is true that the preposition here could translate as ‘for’ or ‘to’ but I think the best translation which fits the context should be ‘against’. Therefore the text should read “your desire shall be against your husband.”
   The reason I believe this is simple. There are only 2 occurrences of this precise construction, that is ‘desire’ (teshuqah) with ‘’el’ as well as with the rest of the verse with the ‘rule’ of husband. The other construction is found very near by in chapter 4. Let me put the 2 side by side
   Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
   Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

In Gen 4, God is saying to Cain that sin is crouching at the door, and then we come to the important construction “its ‘desire (teshuqah) is ‘for’ (‘el) you, and you must ‘rule’ over it. It is non negotiable here that the desire is a negative thing since it is sin. For Cain, sins desire is against him (as it is all of us), but Cain must rule over it.

Therefore the preposition in 3:16 would be better translated as against (which is of course one of its many meanings) since the intention is the same. Eve’s desire will be against her husband (namely trying to dominate him) but he will rule (lord over negatively) her. Since again the context is in the middle of punishment this is the intended meaning of the verse. With sin, Adam and Eve’s relationship is destroyed. She will try to usurp his authority and he will lord it over her. It is a complete corruption of the original design.

Again Cheryl’s view conflicts with mainstream egalitarianism. Richard Hass agrees on this particular meaning for verse 16- quote “Susan Foh suggests that woman’s desire here is not a sexual desire but a desire to dominate, just as sin has a ‘desire’ to ‘rule over’ Cain (Gen 4:7). Applying the basic hermeneutical principle of translating an expression in one context by the same expression in a nearby and related context…Foh seems to have gotten it right…” (pg 92 Discovering Biblical Equality). It is not good enough for Cheryl to use 3:16 as her proof text for why Eve left the garden. In fact it has nothing to do with the sort. Verse 16 is a punishment and prophecy of the woman. Rather than a perfect relationship, she will now desire against her husband- to dominate him.

Summary
Therefore we must conclude that Eve leaving the garden was not simply because her desire was for Adam, and Cheryl’s proof text must be disregarded as bad exegesis. There is no reason to deduce this as the reason why Eve was no longer in the garden. Therefore we now have to conclusions.
1. Eve was a guilty sinner
2. Eve desire was against her husband not for him (negative context remember)

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.

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.

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

Mark,
Glad to see you on the blog again. I wonder if you read my comments to you that I posted specifically a request that you apologize to Kay. I am glad that you feel free to comment and post challenges. Any view that considers itself as truth will stand up to the challenges. But we do need to make sure that as we answer challenges (as you have tried to do) that you do not become accusatory of someone’s salvation or their being an orthodox believer. This is why I ask you to apologize to Kay.

Anyway good to see some more for me to answer. I love doing that. My response will take some take as we are heading out of country this morning for another important meeting and I won’t be back until late this week. If I get time when we are in our motel room I will start my response. If not my answers will have to wait until the weekend.

Anyone else that wants to work on their apologetic prowess can take Mark on in the meantime. Have fun and be nice to Mark along the way as he is a brother in Christ even if he strongly disagrees with us on the freedom that God gives to women to use their gifts without restriction. My next post may be of great interest to Mark too which won’t likely be up until the weekend as well.

Cheerio, 🙂
Cheryl

I will happily let others slug it out over “banishment” issues as I really don’t have a dog in that fight (I side with Cheryl, but my interest is luke warm at best). I will say this, though, to Mark. Not only do I agree with the below statement by you (which puts me somewhat at odds with many here), but your translational views on el may provide the missing link to showing the “why” of something I have long felt true but have struggled to find any good argument for: that the “desire” of Genesis 3:16 negatively impacts marriage as much as the “rule”. So, at least in this one rare instance, you and I are sympatico.

1. First of all, we need to remember that this verse is within the corpus of punishment and curse. Therefore to assume that anything in these verses is ‘positive’ neglects the context. I say this to comps as well, since some believe that this verse is a remedy to the fall (that the husband shall rule over wives). This is wrong. This is a judgment on Eve and Adam therefore nothing here should be considered positive. Eve’s desire is not positive, nor is the husbands rule.

I have to agree that I do not see Eve’s desire as positive. I also do not see teshuqa as sexual in nature even though many translated it that way according to Bushnell’s translation chart on this word and the subsequent translations throughout history.

“1.we only have I recorded instance of God’s command not to touch the tree of knowledge. This was given to Adam only (Eve was not created). Therefore the question is raised, how did Eve know. Either Adam told her or God told her. ”

Much is made of this to prove hierarchy. But many times information is given to a partner to tell another partner. This proves nothing about hierarchy. It does prove that the one who has less knowledge or personal experience could be easily decieved. This would apply to Eve who did not see the creating going on in the Garden that Adam saw. But it does not prove hierarchy in the One Flesh Union that God intended.

I am not sure how you view Gen 1, whether you see it as a Macro view and Gen 2 as a micro view. It would be interesting to know.

How can we know who told Eve except from what we read in the Word:

“He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,(B) ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'” 4(C) ”

It is adding to the Word for anyone to say that only Adam told her. Speculating on this is senseless.

Personally, I do not see Banishment as an issue at all when it comes to hierarchy. Why? Because the seed of Messiah had been promised by God through “her” which would crush the serpent. Eve was contemplating this promise when she bore Cain. Note she does not give Adam any credit for or even interest in her first born son:
“I have acquired a man from the LORD.”

The Hebrew is better translated:
The “I have purchased a man with YHWH” or “I have purchased the man YHWH.”

The whole concept of “purchase” has been wiped out of translations. It has been translated as “get” or “aquired” which does not fully communicate what Eve was saying.

Who cares about Banishment when one is looking for Messiah to crush Satan? The damage was done. Eve was hoping Cain was the promised seed.

Cheryl believes that although Eve’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to her only, since Adam had already been told what not to eat (Gen 2:17), it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam.

The serpent asked the woman what God said to the both of them by using the plural “you”.

He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You (plural) must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to the both of them, not to her only, as shown by her quoting the words of God which have the plural “you”.

3:3
but God did say, ‘You (plural) must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you (plural) must not touch it, or you (plural) will die.’ ”

The woman is not quoting God in the first part of her answer (3:2). She is only quoting God in the second part of her answer (3:3) when she then says “but God did say”.

3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden.”

Adam had already been told what not to eat when he was alone, prior to God giving them both permission to eat from all trees on the face of the earth. Adam originaly only was given trees in the garden for food, but after the woman was created he was then given permission (along with the woman) to eat from all trees on the face of the earth.

2:17 but you (singular) must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you (singular) will surely die.”

1:29 Then God said, “I give you (plural) every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam

The woman did not misquote what was already given to Adam (ONLY trees of the garden) because she did not even quote God in the first part of her answer (“We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden.”). Not only did she not misquote God since the first part of her response wasn’t a quote of God’s but she also got correct what was given for food to the both of them (all trees on the face of the earth which included the trees in the garden).

Cheryl believes that although Eve’s quotation of God’s words was a direct command given to her only, since Adam had already been told what not to eat (Gen 2:17), it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam.

Adam had already been told once what to eat (trees in the garden), before he was given more food (trees on the face of the earth). So God tells Adam twice what he can eat.

God could have prohibited Adam twice from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil since he twice told him what he could eat.

it is therefore her opinion that Eve did not ‘misquote’ what was already given to Adam

The woman did not misquote what was already given to Adam (ONLY trees of the garden) because she did not even quote God in the first part of her answer (”We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden.”). Not only did she not misquote God since the first part of her response wasn’t a quote of God’s but she also got correct what was given for food to the both of them (all trees on the face of the earth which included the trees in the garden).

Problem-
1.we only have I recorded instance of God’s command not to touch the tree of knowledge. This was given to Adam only (Eve was not created). Therefore the question is raised, how did Eve know. Either Adam told her or God told her.

That’s right. We only have 1 recorded instance of God’s command not to TOUCH the tree of knowledge. And that record is the woman’s testimony.
Why would Adam tell her that she can eat from trees in the garden, when God told them both that they could eat from all the trees on the face of the earth? Why would Adam tell her that she could not eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil when God gave them both permission to eat from all trees (that had fruit with seed) which would have excluded the prohibited tree since the prohibition given to Adam when he was alone cannot contradict the permission (fruit with seed) they were both given to eat?

God couldn’t prohibit Adam from eating of one tree in the garden only to turn around later after the woman was created and give him (and her) permission to eat from all trees on the face of the earth that had seed without contradiction unless the prohibited tree had no seed.

How did the woman know what? How did the woman know what she could eat? She knew because God told her while she was with Adam what she could eat. How did she know what she couldn’t eat? She was only given permission to eat from trees on the face of the earth (which includes the garden) that had fruit WITH seed. How did she know what God prohibited her (and him) from eating? She said what God said.

but God did say, ‘You (plural) must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you (plural) must not touch it, or you (plural) will die.’ ”

Since we have no recording of God speaking directly and only to Eve, it is far safer to go with the text we have.

The woman’s testimony doesn’t speak of God speaking only to her, but rather to both of them because of the plural “you”. And it is biblical to just go with the text:

but God did say, ‘You (plural) must not eat fruit

It is better to assume that Adam told Eve the prohibition not God.

Again why would Adam tell Eve what she could eat when God already told her and why would he tell her what she couldn’t eat when they were only given permission to eat fruit with seed? And why would Adam tell her when God told her, as she said God did?

Therefore we conclude that Eve did not quote the prohibition correctly. She dropped ‘any’ from “we may eat from the fruit of (any) tree in the garden… This is an important omission since it already shows that God seemingly isn’t as generous as he first was.

Let’s look at this again:
The woman said to the serpent,
A “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden,
B 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.’ ”

The woman says “God said” after she answers the serpent’s question about the garden trees. At this point she is not quoting God. And her answer was correct since she was told that she and her husband could have ALL trees with seed on the face of the earth which must include the garden trees. She was simply answering the serpent’s question on the trees of the garden. The serpent didn’t ask about all the trees on the face of the earth but rather about the garden trees.

She didn’t drop the word “any” since she was giving the information that she knew which was not what God gave to Adam to eat (trees of the garden). She knew that they could both eat from the trees in the garden since they were given all trees on the face of the earth.

If she dropped the word “any” then she surley left of the rest of the trees on the face of the earth outside of the garden! Now that’s a ridiculous notion. All she was doing was answering the serpent’s question about the garden trees, but she wasn’t quoting God at that point.

This is an important omission since it already shows that God seemingly isn’t as generous as he first was.

God was sooo generous that he gave her trees on the entire EARTH!! Do you really think she didn’t know this and just forgot how generous God was to her when he gave them both food to eat on the whole earth?

Do you really think that she forgot God gave her all trees on the earth and so now she thinks that she can only eat from trees in the garden? She was only answering the serpent’s question on the garden trees.

Next Eve adds ‘neither shall you touch it’ which is not in the recorded account we have of God’s actual words. This too is important for it now shows that God is crueller than before. So the serpent’s crafty question has begun to make Eve believe that God first of all is ‘stingy’ and second of all he is a harsh God, not even being allowed to touch the fruit. Now we know that it wasn’t the ‘touching’ of the fruit that caused the fall but the ‘eating’, (Gen 3:6-7) which is precisely what is predicted in Gen 2. So Eve was not correct by telling the serpent they couldn’t even touch it.

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.

Next Eve adds ‘neither shall you touch it’ which is not in the recorded account we have of God’s actual words. This too is important for it now shows that God is crueller than before.

I think it’s pretty cruel to claim that Eve forgot that she could eat from every single tree that covered the planet by assuming she knew the very words of the command given to Adam when he was alone and she wasn’t even around.

So the serpent’s crafty question has begun to make Eve believe that God first of all is ‘stingy’ and second of all he is a harsh God, not even being allowed to touch the fruit.

Stingy? I doubt someone who’s given every single tree on the planet that has seed would look at the giver of food galore as stingy.

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.

Mark,
Those comments above are some of my responses to what you’ve said. I’d like to get to more of what you’ve said, and I will as I have time. I do hope you address them though. There’s just so much to cover! ;P

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.

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!

Mark,

Also there is another problem with Cheryl’s view namely that during God’s judgement on Adam God directly refers to the dialogue between himself and Adam in chapter 2. God said “of which I commanded YOU, ‘you shall not eat’. This is not said to Eve because God didn’t give her the direct command.

Eve already quoted God when she defended him to the serpent. She didn’t need a reminder of what God said, but Adam on the other hand while he was with her didn’t say a word about what God commanded. God calls him on what he had commanded him. And ofcourse God didn’t remind Eve of what he said to Adam when she wasn’t around because she wouldn’t have known about it.

The blame here is given to Adam as the one given the prohibition but who worse than Eve, still rejected it. Therefore we must conclude that God did not give a new command to Eve, or even if he did give one to both (see below for reason) Adam is still held as the major responsible partner. It is not good enough to assume something into the text which can not be supported.

The assumptions Mark that are being made are the ones you are making. You are assuming Adam must have told her. You are assuming that he was more responsible because God gave the command only directly to him by discounting Eve’s testimony. You assume that Eve started to look at God as being stingy when yet he gave her all trees on the planet that had seed. Amazing! You’re assuming she left off words of the command that was given to Adam. You assume she even knew the command that was given to Adam. Your argument is nothing but assumption.

Hi Mark,

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.

But I thought that you said it’s “far safer” to go with the text we have? Eve’s testimony of God giving a different prohibition (though not a contradictory one) would be the text we have would it not?

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.

No, we also have the prohibiton given to Adam in Genesis 1. The prohibiton is encompassed in the permission to eat of more food because what’s he’s given in Gen 1 cannot contradict what he was already prohibited from in Gen 2. Different doesn’t mean contradictory.

We have food given to Adam to eat along with a command, the permission given to both of them to eat, and the woman’s testimony of God’s command. That IS what we have. It’s speculation to say that any of what we do have is not true. All are true but you are speculating that the woman’s testimony is false without anything to support the claim. That Adam, before woman was created, was given a command that Eve wasn’t doesn’t support a thing against her testimony since one does not contradict the other. You are only taking some of what we have and leaving off the rest – her testimony.

If Eve was correct in quoting God, why don’t her and Adam die when they ‘touch it’?

If you want to get technical, though I don’t think the intent of the author was to mean that when they touch it, that their touching of it would cause them to die, especially without also eating it since that’s what the text says anyway – touch and eat then die – then looking at Gen 3 technicaly combines their death with not only eating the fruit but also touching it. The author makes it a point of when BOTH TOUCH it and only then were their eyes opened. Notice the author doesn’t leave off that they both “touched it”.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she TOOK SOME and ate it. She also GAVE SOME to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened,

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?

The text explicitly includes the fact that both touched the fruit and ate and THEN their eyes were opened. The author could have left out this detail and only wrote about their eating of the fruit but instead he made sure to include it.

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

The author made sure to show us when she became deceived and it was at the point that she saw the fruit as good for food. This is the point in time where the author lets us in on what’s going on in Eve’s mind. She has now become deceived because of the way she now sees the fruit. There is NO evidence before her perception changes that she was deceived when she was answering the serpent’s question about the garden trees and defending God’s command that was given to both of them.

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

“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.”

A couple of thoughts. First, I am not certain that Eve was not banished, I just favor Cheryl’s exegesis of vss. 22-24. But as I said, my interest in that section of the text is minimal. Second, the verse I am very interested in – vs. 16 – while being a brick in your case also stands alone related marriage. I simply don’t think I have to believe x about a in order to believe y about b.

“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?”

I have stated on this blog that I do not see exactly eye to eye with many here regarding “desire”, (or, for that matter, submission in Eph 5), but there has seldom been an occassion where a detailed debate of that specific topic has been appropriate. Cheryl focuses mainly on women in ministry and not marriage, so I try to remain as topic appropriate as possible. This may be that thread, but ironically, your dissertation has taken the discussion away from a scrutinizing look at vs. 16b. That’s fine with me if it’s fine with Cheryl. In reality, I have said about as much as I would have otherwise said simply by agreeing with your singular point on vs. 16b. I know I am in the minority, and welcome a dialog about both “desire” and “rule”, but am just as comfortable letting the conversation go where it may. Sooner or later, it will become a specific point of discussion on my blog, which is when and where I intend to exert the majority of my energy.

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.

Mark, you’ve no proof from the text that she was deceived when she answered the serpent’s question. Her answer was correct about what they could eat, putting aside your assumption that she knew the command God gave Adam before she was created. They both could eat fruit from the trees in the garden since both could eat fruit from trees on the entire earth. Her answer was framed according to the way the serpent framed his question – on garden trees. I don’t assume she knew the command given to Adam. There is not a shred of evidence that she knew it. In fact, when ALL the evidence is held up and compared, (including a comparison of God’s command to the serpent’s exact words) Eve is COMPLETELY oblivious as can be seen in her response to the serpent, to the command that God gave Adam when she wasn’t around.

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.

How can you read Eve’s mind if you can’t see through her eyes? The text in Gen 3 explicitly shows us her perception of when she is decieved and that’s when she looks at the fruit as good. We can see through her eyes wihtout a doubt at that point. And tell me this, how could she think God stingy who gave her trees of the planet? That makes no sense at all, Mark. Please explain that?

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,

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?

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.

This order may help more:

1. (GEN 2)
   Adam is given food to eat from the trees of the garden and a prohibition on one of the garden trees. (Gen 2:16-17)
2. (GEN 2)
   Eve is created. (Gen 2:22-25)
3. (GEN 1:28)
   Both are told to be fruitful and increase. Ofcourse this cannot be a command that’s only given to the man, now could it?!
4. (GEN 1:29)
   Both are given permission to eat from all trees on the earth that have fruit with seed. So Adam now has more to eat than just from the garden trees. (1:29)
5. (GEN 3:2,3)
   Eve gives her testimony that God gave them a prohibition.

Basicaly my point is, Gen 1 is not intended to be read in between Gen 2 and 3.

GEN 1
28 God blessed THEM and said to THEM, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you (PLURAL) every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

Perhaps Mark, you have a better idea of WHEN God told BOTH to be fruitful and increase in number if not “in between chp 2 and 3? The information within the chapters are meant to be integrated since they tell of the one and only time, the beginning.

Mark, Mark, Mark,

How could God of told them both to be fruitful and increase in number (Chp 1) if it wasn’t untel there was a “two of them” (after woman’s creation) that is, after chp 2? You’re reading the narratives as if the beginning wasn’t a real point in time.

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.

Mark,

The reason why you see this is because you discount her testimony since the command given to Adam doesn’t contradict it therefore your conclusion is based on assumption alone. I just take her word for it since there’s nothing in the whole of the creation and fall account that proves her testimony and her answer to the serpent were false.

The idea of deception must be understood throughout the whole conversation.

No, not without scriptural proof. The idea of deception must NOT be understood throughout the whole conversation without the scripture’s word on it. Scripture itself ought to tell us when the idea of deception is to be understood – if it provides such information – which it does. We can’t just replace what the scripture has provided by adding to it and then distort the information it gives. The serpent asks a question about the garden trees. The woman answers the serpent’s specific question about the garden trees since she already had knowledge on more than just the garden trees. She already knew that she could eat from all trees even the one’s outside the garden. Then she gives God’s command.

What evidence Mark do you have that tells us that from the moment she spoke (answered the serpent’s question) that she started falling into deception?

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?

She answered the serpent correctly. 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? Why don’t you answer some of my specific questions?

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?

Were they BOTH not able to eat from the trees of the garden?? I’m not asking you about what God said to Adam when he was alone before woman was created. I’m asking you is it is CORRECT that she and him both could eat from trees of the garden. The serpent did ask about the garden trees, did he NOT?

I already told you what made her take the fruit. She saw it was good. Her perception was now in a state of deception since she saw the fruit as good.

I also cannot find when God commanded Adam the exact words, “You (singular) must not eat of it.” If God said that, since it is a quote, then when did he say it? Also how many times was Adam told what he could and could not eat?

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.

Mark,

Well so far the internet is holding up so I will try to get through a bit of your points.

Cheryl has said that Eve was ‘deceived’ and Adam sinned ‘wilfully’ (I agree), but Cheryl’s conclusion therefore is that she was no longer a threat to the tree of life.

My conclusion is because the woman did not sin with willful rebellion. Do you agree with me on this? If she did not sin with willful rebellion and she was no longer deceived so she now knows the truth, and God never questions a rebellious action on her behalf, then we have no piece of evidence that the woman would be a threat to the tree of life by rebellion on her behalf. You would have to assume that she had a sin nature of rebellion as Adam had to think this way. I am just going through your comments, so forgive me if you already answered this, but I would like to see specific arguments from the text that show that Eve has a rebellious sin nature.

Mark,
You said:

Cheryl has also told me that although Eve did leave the reason is because her ‘desire is for her husband’ (3:16). Essentially she is fulfilling this prophecy by leaving the garden. Correct me if I am wrong on any of this Cheryl.

No, this is not correct. What I said was that God’s words to the woman would be a good and possible reason for why she left. It makes sense to me, but since the Scripture doesn’t specifically say why she left, it is speculation. You speculation is that she was kicked out even though the text doesn’t say that. It is my speculation that she desired her husband and he took his rule over her to make sure that she was with him. Since these were God’s words, 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.

Hi again Mark,

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?

What, you ask made her see the fruit was good? This which is what the serpent said after she got correct what her and Adam could eat, framing her question according to what the serpent was asking, and also after she told God’s command:

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.”

Those are the words that she ended up believing which is why she next saw the fruit as good. It doesn’t matter whether or not she even looked at the tree once, a hundred times, or never untell the serpent said that she and her husband would not surely die… And the reason why it doesn’t matter is because what does matter is that WHEN she saw it good for food, ONLY THEN did she eat.

6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

Her perception was now in a state of deception, and how she got where she did was through the serpent lying about her and her husband not dying if they ate and becoming like God. She certainly didn’t get to a state of deception by telling the serpent what they could eat and telling God’s command.

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.

LOL. It not a tactic, I was being completely serious. It seemed to me that if my questions were addressed directly then maybe we could go forward. Shall I go back and tally up all the questions you’ve not answered of mine? I will if you want me to and then you can see how serious I was.

No, this is not correct. What I said was that God’s words to the woman would be a good and possible reason for why she left. It makes sense to me, but since the Scripture doesn’t specifically say why she left, it is speculation. You speculation is that she was kicked out even though the text doesn’t say that. It is my speculation that she desired her husband and he took his rule over her to make sure that she was with him. Since these were God’s words, 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 great. Love it. Love the detail! 🙂

LOL

Mark,
You said:

It is not only comps who believe that Adam must have reported the prohibition to Eve.

That is because this is the tradition that has been passed on by comps. When egals are given the evidence they are free to reject the tradition.

2. The narrative also shows Eve’s ‘desire’ to become wise (Gen 3:6). The word here desire is the same that is used in the Ten commandments- translated do not ‘covet’(Ex 20:17). This is not a ‘good’ thing. Her desire for the fruit is negative showing her rejection of God’s truth.

The desire for wisdom is not negative unless one goes outside of God’s way. The context shows that she has become deceived and a word is to be defined by the context. We will evaluate the context of the other “desire” shortly.

Mark,
You said:

No doubt though, that it was the serpents trickery that led her to that point. We just must be careful to exclude Eve from any involvement in the account, and therefore come to the conclusion that Eve is innocent. She was deceived but she is guilty of desiring wisdom which was not for her. She acted against God’s command and took the fruit.

I agree that Eve fell into sin through deception. I don’t think that anyone has said that after she was deceived that she was “innocent”. The question is how can you impeach her for quoting God in error or lying about what God said when the serpent did not tempt her to lie about her own testimony? Assuming your position without considering God’s view of the supposed “sin” before Eve was deceived will not convince someone like me who carefully looks at the text for the inspired evidence.

That’s about all I can do tonight. I am gone pretty much all of tomorrow so will get back to your answers as I can.

I appreciate your challenge as those who read my blog can decide for themselves who is looking at the evidence from the text and who is assuming their position by assuming what is not said.

Thanks for trying Mark, will get back to you shortly.

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.

Then answer these questions, When did God tell them to multiply? Did he tell them after the woman was created, which would be sometime after the account of Gen 2 where the woman was created, or before, or is there some other possibility? How long after Eve’s creation do you think God waited to give her something to eat? The sole purpose of Gen 1 is not to act as an overview, it is all to serve the details on a plate, plain and clear of what happened at creation. Now it may give less details and the same details but in different ways, but it still adds more details that are not given in Gen 2, – there’s no argument against that.

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.

Cheryl has explained this somewhere here on her blog. If I can find it for you I’ll post the links. When I become interested in such discussion we can go at it then if you’d like. 😛
You are treating the accounts as if they could possibly contradict one another. That’s my point – they absolutely CANNOT and do NOT and the reason being because they tell the same exact story but just from different angels and perspective with different details. I’ve never understood why this is a big deal to some, except it is tradition to say that there are contradictions amongst the accounts. This I do not believe. I don’t believe in a contradictory God who makes no sense.

Mark,

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.

If you are correct than you are telling me that the accounts tell of two different times where God made two sets of a male and female. Is this what you believe? It is so simple, to me. It’s all one big story broken down into 2 accounts. So what? If it’s the same story then everyhting integrates together beautifully without contradiction.

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.

So then, yes, both could eat from the trees in the garden (this is what Eve told the serpent) in the very first part of her response to the serpent’s question, right, Mark?

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.

Yes, I meant – that they both were given every tree and plant with fruit that had seed, on the face of the entire earth, that is what I meant. (Therefore the tree of konwledge could not of had seed in it’s fruit.) Do you agree with that?
Thank you Mark for answering some questions! 🙂

Textual reasons why she left the garden with Adam:
1) The prophecy about the enmity between her seed and Adam’s seed. Since Adam was kicked out she would of had to go with him.
2) God said he’d multiply her conception, and Adam was kicked out so again she had to go with him for this to take place.
3) Adam’s rule over her
4) Her desire for her husband
5) ?

This actualy doesn’t apply since she didn’t need a male to become pregnant with Jesus. I wasn’t thinken. I should probably go to bed now anyway.

1) The prophecy about the enmity between her seed and the serpent’s seed. Since Adam was kicked out she would of had to go with him.

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, 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?

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’

Mark – “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?”

Yes

Mark,

You said:

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?

The Bible says that she fell into sin through deception. This means that she did indeed sin but she did not sin in rebellion which is sinning with full intention. The Bible talks about sinning with rebellion and then there is sinning unintentionally. There is a sacrifice specifically given for unintentional sin. Are you really unaware of unintentional sin and think that all sin is rebellion? Do a check in the Scriptures and see for yourself.

How do we reconcile with the way that Eve behaves after her sin? Her hiding is not rebellion but shame. Shame follows sin when you become aware of your sin. It doesn’t matter why you sin, sin is shameful.

The Jewish practice was to cover up during prayer and worship because of the shame of their sin. Sin always looks to be covered up.

Now I am asking you again to show that Eve was guilty of rebellion. If you don’t even understand that there is a difference in sin and defined by God through the OT, how will you understand the difference between one who sins in rebellion and then brings that rebellion through to his offspring and one who has no rebellion but sins because she has fallen into transgression through deception?

“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?”

Where have you been? I have disagreed with Cheryl on several things but not on the essentials. For one thing, I wanted to study this further because I was having a hard time thinking of some of Gen 3 as positive. (Maybe that comes from experiencing labor pains?) But I do see some of it as positive. What God told the serpent about what would happen through the Woman is VERY positive and positive for women. I think you comps miss that and it’s importance.

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

ABSOLUTLEY NOT! That is ridiculous. This is another area of disagreement with many egals for me. I think desire is a horrible translation and brings in the sexual element which I think too much is made of. The problem that God is saying will happen (He is not commanding…it is a consequence of her sin) is that she will TURN AWAY from God and toward her husband. Doing so is SIN!

You cannot see that because your comp filter tells you that Adam was in charge of Eve before the fall. And you ignore ‘One Flesh Union”. The fall is what ruined the One Flesh Union and brought in the sin of patriarchy and men wanting pre-eminance. A quick glance at history after the fall only proves that women were more than willing to turn toward their husbands and even be treated horribly.

“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.”

You are reading WAY too much into this theory of banishment. The whole thing does not crumble over that. You wish it did and are grasping at straws. My view is that it does not matter. And I made that clear in my last comment. Eve was looking for that promised Messiah. The correct translation is: “I have purchased a man with YHWH”

Eve seemed to be more focused on that. Another reason it does not matter is because of what Gen 3 already told us about Eve would turn toward her husband and AWAY from God.

“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.”

Mark, this is not about trashing Cheryl. Cheryl is great about disagreements in egal circles. She believes we learn truth from the Word. She is open to being corrected but I cannot correct because I simply do not know. My point has been that it does not matter to me one way or the other because Gen 3 tells me that Eve will turn toward Adam and away from God. My view is she followed him out because she was turning toward Adam.

Eve’s consequence of the fall is that she will turn away from God and toward her husband instead. That is simple basic truth of why comp teaching is sinful. Because you teach a wife turning toward her husband instead of God as virtue. It simply is not true.

Mark,
You said:

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’.

Then must also have been included in ‘ha’adam’ in verse 9 too? How do you answer that?

While ‘ha’adam’ can be all humans in special cases, the context is clear that this is not the case in the account of creation. In Genesis 3:17 ‘ha’adam’ is clearly only one person since ‘his wife’ is also referenced and ‘ha’adam’ is said in verse 19 to go back to the ground that he was taken from. Only one person was taken from the ground. Then in verse 23 once again the man is said to be sent out so that he could work the ground that “he was taken from”. This removes any confusion that ‘ha’adam’ could mean Eve.

It is only a very few specific cases where ‘ha’adam’ can possibly be the who human race and the context will clearly define that for us. The context of the creation and fall makes it clear that ‘ha’adam’ is only Adam. If you are not willing to see that you have a huge problem. It seems to me that your position is that God came to the male alone showing that Adam was head, but if ‘ha’adam’ means both of them, then God didn’t go just to the male alone did He?

The fact is that throughout the creation account ‘ha’adam’ is continually referred to for the one man – the male Adam. We would expect to find this since the normal use of ‘ha’adam’ is a specific person. And when Adam was kicked out it is extremely specific unless you are going to say that the singular pronoun now refers to plural people and “the ground from which he was taken” refutes the fact that Eve was not taken from the ground. And if you can take the very specific ‘ha’adam’ with its singular pronoun and its specific ground from which he (singular) was taken and make this refer to both of them, then you had better be prepared to make every single ‘ha’adam’ refer to both of them throughout the creation account. Are you really willing to do this?

Well unfortunately I don’t have time for more right now as I have to go for my appointments and likely won’t be back on line until late tonight. The internet connection again this morning was almost impossible to connect to. It is very frustrating to me, but that is something I have to live with when away from the office.

Take care guys and Mark 😉 have fun battling any of these matters out and I’ll connect later.

“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.”

Mark, are we reading the same Bible? I do not know what you mean by ‘threat’ but after reading your comments here, you simply cannot see the reality of the Word because of your male supremacy filter. If you could ‘banish’ that filter, it would really become more clear. :o)

The Word is very clear. Eve was deceived. Adam sinned on purpose. What did Eve do after she was deceived? SHE ADMITTED IT!. What did Adam do? Blamed Eve and God.

Can you not see the parallels to this truth and what is taught in 1 Timothy 1-2?

Yes, Eve was ashamed not rebellious! She believed the serpent. But look again after the fall…what did Eve do? She was hoping that she purchased a man from God…the promise of the One who would crush the serpent.

(BTW: We have many who do the same thing the serpent did in the Garden. They say, surely God did not say…and they use this same trick to dumb down sin. I say this because I think I understand what you are worried about here)

But, I am simply stunned at the way you are adding to Gen 2-3 what is not in the Word. The Word is clear. Eve was deceived. Adam sinned willfully and dealt treacherously with God. Eve admitted she was deceived. Adam blamed God and Eve. Even the responses to sin was totally different for them both!

On another note: How do you get it out of Genesis 3, that Eve wants to dominate Adam? When the word clearly says, the husband would seek to dominate her because she ‘turned’ toward him instead of God. She becomes a doormat looking to her husband for her needs instead of trusting God for her needs. Patriarchy is born of sin. YET, God works through sinful man all through the OT and regulates his sinfulness later through the law.

“When the word clearly says, the husband would seek to dominate her because she ‘turned’ toward him instead of God. She becomes a doormat looking to her husband for her needs instead of trusting God for her needs.”

This is actually the point where I differ from most of my egal friends. As Mark has said, there is nothing positive or good in Genesis 3:16b. Just as I can not agree with hard complementarian views that males are the heroes of Genesis 3:16 whose “rule” is simply a godly counter to those evil women and their cunning, sinful, ways, I can also not agree that females are universally the perpetual poor, pitiful, “doormat” victims of those abusive, domineering males. It takes two to tango. I sincerely believe Genesis 3:16b describes how BOTH genders contribute to the breakdown of marriage in this fleshly, sinful world. It contains neither heroes nor martyrs.

“This is actually the point where I differ from most of my egal friends. As Mark has said, there is nothing positive or good in Genesis 3:16b. Just as I can not agree with hard complementarian views that males are the heroes of Genesis 3:16 whose “rule” is simply a godly counter to those evil women and their cunning, sinful, ways, I can also not agree that females are universally the perpetual poor, pitiful, “doormat” victims of those abusive, domineering males. It takes two to tango. I sincerely believe Genesis 3:16b describes how BOTH genders contribute to the breakdown of marriage in this fleshly, sinful world. It contains neither heroes nor martyrs.”

I agree with this. It is a result of sin and HER choice that she turns away from God and toward her husband. Then it became ingrained in the culture. (Gengwell, if you can tell me how a Muslim woman can escape her environmental prison living in a Muslim country, let me know. Does she have a choice in that tango?)

Hi Mark,

If you are going to claim that Eve blamed someone else for her sin then you MUST also claim that even Paul also blames someone else for Eve’s sin. To say that she blamed the serpent is not correct.

blames someone else for her sin

Gen 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

Gen 3:13
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

2 Co 11
3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning,

Now Adam on the other hand DID blame someone else for his sin and the reason why this is accurate is because he wasn’t even deceived into sinning.

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?

So, unless you are going to be consistent and claim that Paul blames someone else for Eve’s sin, then your atatement that “She responds to her sin exactly the same as Adam” is false. And as Cheryll already pointed out, “hiding and covering” is a matter of shame. Someone doesn’t hide and cover themselves from God out of rebellion! Adam sinned one way and the woman sinned another way. Therefore they do not have the same “sin nature”. Eve was a sinner, Adam was a sinner but Adam was not deceived.

Mark,

I want textual proof that Eve was banished out of the garden. There can be no doubt – 100% – that Adam was banished out of the garden. The proof that he was banished out of the garden is 100%. There is no way it can be debated or argued. There’s is NO doubt that he was banished. Now what of Eve? We can claim that the bible teaches that Adam was banished from the garden but what can we claim biblicaly of Eve?

22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. 24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Mark,

Do you take God’s very own words, literaly or not?

In regards to your comment #61, Gen 1 says that God SPOKE to them and we know this is after the woman was created because he spoke to a “them” (pl). Yeah, God’s words SHOULD be taken here literaly – him giving them food over the face of the earth (fruit with seed), and rulership over the earth and animals because these are God’s words being spoken. Would you like to make the argument that God did NOT actualy speak and say what the bible says he said? Can you explain to me how I’m taken the text to literally by accepting the words of God that come out of his mouth?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

“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.”

You cannot get ‘usurp her husbands authority’ out of that passage. Sorry, it is not there. Why? Because he had no authority over her to begin with. YOu cannot usurp something that does not exist. It is simply not in there. God never once told Adam he was in charge of Eve. YOu have to read that INTO the creation account. As a matter of fact, God would not have told them it was to be a One Flesh Union. He would have made it clear it was an authority/follower relationship. He would not have given both dominion.

And by the way, that is a fairly recent interpretation. For thousands of years it was taught that male authority came AFTER the Fall. Not before. But then as folks became more literate and could read for themselves they realized that was teaching sin as a virtue so you guys had to do something so you invented creation order to mean authority. That is becoming more and more of a problem so now they are mapping the Trinity to human relationships. I am almost afraid to find out what they will do next!

Did you look at the translation chart I linked to earlier about the translations of teshuqa over the centuries?

“Do you really think Eve was looking for the messiah? How would she even know what the messiah was?”

I probably should not have used the term Messiah. I am simply relating back to what God said to the serpent which Eve heard and her response to her first child.

15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[e] and(M) her offspring;
(N) he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

The implication is that she wanted him to be what God had told her would come and consequently would happen to the evil one when she said:

“I have purchased a man with YHWH”

“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”

Of course, as Mark surely knows, this is half what I believe. I would not say that her desire is to usurp her husband’s authority because I do not believe any authority has been granted to the husband. I am not certain what her desire is for. I only believe that it is negative to the marriage. But her husband has no authority over her to usurp, so that can;t be it.

“I agree with gengwell, Gen 3:16 is not making women doormats.”

Women made themselvs doormats by turning to their husbands instead of God. So, it is horrifying that comps teach this as a virtue. Women should look to Jesus Christ as their authority and leader if they are saved. They are also given the indwelling Holy Spirit and do not need an earthly layer between them and Christ.

“(Gengwell, if you can tell me how a Muslim woman can escape her environmental prison living in a Muslim country, let me know. Does she have a choice in that tango?)”

Certainly, a culture can make the tango lopsided.

Okay to carry on from Mark original points:

3. Also there is a grammatical problem with Cheryl’s view. When Eve quotes what God said the ‘You’ is plural right through verses 1-5. For example the serpent said “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat…” Eve replies verse 3 “but God did say, You shall not eat…”
   The ‘you’ is plural consistent throughout. Therefore if Cheryl wishes to be consistent, God’s ‘new’ prohibition that is given (which is not recorded) is given to both Adam and Eve, not just Eve.

I think this point has been covered previously, but I will repeat just so that you actually can understand my point, Mark. I didn’t say that the “new” information was given to just Eve. In fact because she uses the plural proves that it was given to both of them. Therefore your claim that there is a grammatical problem with my claim just shows that you weren’t paying attention. The grammar actually supports my claims. Do you understand now?

4 The omission of Yahweh in verse 1-5. Chapter 1 of Gen uses the name ‘Elohim’ for God as he created the world. In chapter 2, though we read LORD God (yhwh elohim). Why is this? This name is used consistently through chapter 2 and 3, except in the verses between the serpent and Eve.

This is a point I have already talked to you about. Argue your points in another forum as I won’t waste blog space on this issue. This is taking us away from the area of women in ministry. And seeing the way you can change the “one created from the earth” into the woman, I think you have taken away credibility from your ability to do exegesis on other areas. So drop it and let’s stay on topic.

5. There is nothing in Gen 3 to make us think that Eve’s sin nature was different to Adam’s as some on this blog would like to suggest.

There is nothing in the text or in the rest of the Scriptures that says that Eve inherited a sin nature from Adam. There is also nothing in the text or the rest of the Scriptures that says that Eve had the sin nature of rebellion. Let’s continue to evaluate your position:

In fact, the opposite is true. We are told that ‘both’ their eyes were open (3:7).

Having their eyes opened has nothing to do with sin nature. It has to do with their nakedness and the sense of shame that they felt. I am continually amazed at the weakness of your argument. How you can connect “their eyes were open” to a sin nature is beyond me.

They ‘both’ sewed fig leaves together in an attempt to hide their shame and nakedness (3:7).

Yah, so? What is your point? I am the one arguing that hiding has to do with shame and not concerning a sin nature in both.

They ‘both’ hid from God in the garden after the fall (3:8).

How does the shame of sin reflect a sin nature on both? The fact is that Eve sinned through deception. She also had to experience shame because she sinned. But to say that she had the same sin nature of rebellion is adding into the Scriptures.

All of these actions which of course are a result of sin now entering the world are administered both by the man and the woman. The woman’s sinful nature responds exactly the way the man’s does.

Again this is begging the question. You are assuming what you have failed to prove. We both agree that both sinned. But one sin does not make a sin nature of rebellion that all of us have inherited from Adam.

Both ate from the tree which was prohibited, therefore both rejected the supremacy of God and his law.

Again you are adding to the text. The Bible says that Eve was deceived. She was not rejecting “the supremacy of God” since she no longer believed that there was a law to follow. She was deceived.

Although Eve was lured into sinning, the result is the same, rejection of God’s command and subsequent punishment.

Oh, really? Then why was nothing cursed on Eve’s behalf? Why did God not say “Because you have done this…cursed is…”? just as He did with the two who sinned deliberately? To say that the result is “the same” is amazing. How is it the same from God’s words to them both after they both sinned?

It is also important to note that the promised punishment for eating (death) is applied to both Adam and Eve. She is equally culpable before the Holy God.

This has nothing to do with a sin nature. After all God told them both (remember that) that they would both die if they ate of the fruit. This is Eve’s testimony. But the subsequent consequences after the fact are not the same. Why?

So Mark you have failed to consider the curse on the earth on the man’s behalf. You are only looking at the death that came to both that was promised before sin entered the world through man. You have failed to explain this from the text choosing to appeal to the assumed conclusion without proving your conclusion. Not allowed my friend. You will have to try harder.

Now concerning Mark’s further comments about my “wrong” conclusions:

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’.

You mean Mr. Hess? Again he is going with the standard comp exegesis of this passage. Not all egalitarians get this part right because we haven’t been forced to rethink the position. This is why I am asking comps and egals alike to rethink what the text actually says instead of just accepting tradition.

It seems that the view that only Adam was banished is unique to Cheryl’s blog, and therefore must carefully be watched.

It would be pretty hard to prove that my view is unique. However let’s suppose for argument sake that this is true. Does this make the argument false? Or is the argument false when it is proven so from the passage? Truth will always stand the test and a false view cannot stand the test. I am very willing to put my view to the test. Unfortunately you have not yet done any damage to the view, but you have done a fair bit of damage to the teaching that Jesus is the last Adam and not the last Adam or Eve. I can hardly believe the consequences of your view and I honestly don’t think that you have thought this one through for it touches Jesus unique position in conjunction to the first earthly man.

Mark, you said:

2. The preceding passage already shows Adams headship. He was created first, Eve was created from and for Adam.

First doesn’t make one the ultimate ruler. David was not first. And Adam could not usurp Eve’s rulership unless God specifically gave Adam as Eve’s ruler. You admit that Genesis 3:16 is not God giving that authority to Adam, so you are still left with nothing. This is a sad position to be in as a complementarian.

Adam was the only one given the prohibition.

This is not true. Eve gives her testimony that the prohibition was given to them (you as plural). You also admitted in one of your responses that God could have given it to both of them, so your assertion now is without a basis to stand on.

Adam names his wife.

God creates her as woman first. We have already gone over this and since you have not been successful at contradicting my position (begging the question), it does not good to just list these issues again. Either prove your point or admit that you have some issues that you need to think through.

Adam is addressed by God first after the fall,

Are you sure? According to your own reasoning, this “the Adam” could mean Adam and Eve. The fact that you are so sure now that this is just the man seems to show that you weren’t really serious that any case of ‘ha’adam’ can mean more than one person. That’s a big problem for you, Marki.

and Adam renames his wife after the fall.

What has the post-fall got to do with God’s design?

All this indicates Adam’s headship over Eve therefore the reference to ha-‘adam only further emphasises his headship.

You have yet to prove a “headship” of one ruler over the other ruler. If you had a proof, I would have thought you could have brought it out by now. This may be time for you to rethink your position as the true view can stand up to the challenge and answer from the text without begging the question.

Adam is held as the primary responsibility.

God judges between motive. Deliberate sin is not the same as unintentional sin. I haven’t seen your answer to this yet. Do you have one?

IN fact the NT clearly teaches the fall of humanity relies on Adam’s shoulders not on Eve’s.

Yeah! We agree!! There is no inherited sin that comes into the world since she never sinned in rebellion. To make their action of sin on the same level is to ignore God’s words about Adam’s treachery and to ignore the fact that there are sins that are more culpable. I would like to have you address this.

Mark,
You said:

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.

The first reference is to one man and the second reference is to both male and female. This Scripture doesn’t say that the singular is plural, but that God not just the first male but 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.

The problem for you Mark is that you don’t get it. I have already agreed that there are some very rare instances where ‘ha’adam’ can mean the whole human race. However it is up to you to prove from the context where it is not only clear that ‘ha’adam’ means all of humanity (Adam and Eve) but that it is impossible for it to be anything else. Other wise your point has no validity.

Therefore the conclusion of Cheryl that the definite article has to only refer to the one man is false.

Mark, please stop misrepresenting me. I didn’t say that. What I said was that in the context of Genesis 3 in this text it cannot mean anything but one man. Will you please stop misquoting me and admit that I am talking about this specific text that is the basis of my argument. It does your point no good to find one of several uncommon usages of ‘ha’adam’. Your argument can only be argued when you prove your point from the text at hand.

Therefore to conclude that Gen 3:22ff can only refer to Adam is simply false.

I have given you proof from the text why it can only mean one man. You have not addressed my argument to remove it as valid. What you have done is to assume your position and then argue from your assumptions and not from the text.

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.

Oh, are you really now admitting that my view is not impossible? Well how about that? Or do you mean something by “equally possible grammatically” to not allow my view the light of day? Common now, ‘fess up. Are you now saying that my view is equally valid as your own view?

Mark,
You said:

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..

What has that got to do with the grammar at hand? I absolutely agree that “man” can refer to one man and in fact you will recall my argument that “man” and “woman” is not generic but referring to one man and one woman. Perhaps you are now arguing my own viewpoint, eh? Well, okay. Keep up the good work. We may be in agreement sooner than later 😉

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.

Well you will actually have to prove it wrong instead of just asserting it to be so. It takes real work to refute a position. I do appreciate that you took a long time to prepare this tome. This says to me that you are serious in your studies and you are not wanting to run away as so many others have. That persistence is a wonderful character trait in a Christian. But you will need more work so that you can avoid the tendency toward using logical fallacies as an argument.

Therefore both are excluded from the garden, and the use of the definite article further highlights the headship of Adam over Eve.

There has been no “headship” proven of one ruler over another. So now are you saying that every time the term “the man” is used, then that one is now the head of all other men? Great imagination. I am wondering if these are your own ideas or if you got them from another theologian. And if the term “the man” proves a headship of one man over another one is a unique argument we are supposed to take your suggestion and reject any argument that is unique? I am quite interested to know if your assertions are to be submitted under your own “rules”? Or are comp arguments exempt?

The last one for tonight.
Mark, you said:

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

I am glad you tried. It was substantial in length for sure. I am also hopeful that we will continue to interact for some time. Talk to you later.

Cheryl

Mark,

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.

Did God or not speak to the man and the woman, blessing them, telling them to multiply, eat and rule? Are those words in Gen 1, the very words of God spoken to the man and the woman, (which had to of been spoken after woman was created that is, “after chp 2”) or not? If God said those specific words to the man and the woman, when did he say them? It seems to me that you don’t believe that the words of God recorded in Gen 1 to the man and woman were actual words that he spoke. Is this true?

To claim the semantic range of a word is not scriptural proof. All that is, is claiming the semantic range of a word. What specificaly is in the text of Gen 3:22 that shows that the word is being used for the race? What grammar shows this? What part of the context shows this claim of yours? Is the grammar plural? Is there anything in the context itself that indicates Eve is in view?

Also what in the text indicates that the man is being addressed as the head? Is there a mention of rule? Is there a word on authority or responsibility? Is there anything said about the man being the head in this text? Where can I actualy read anything about the man as “head” in these verses?

There’s an African proverb that goes something like this:

“If you educate a boy, you educate an individual.
Educate a girl, and you educate a community.”

Kudos! go out to you Cheryl for establishing and educating a wider community out here as to what God’s word says and what it does not say.

I can’t say that I agree though, that increased pregnancies was God’s ordained way to ensure the survival of humankind so much as it was just another aspect of a broken and messed-up creation.

I firmly believe that a woman’s reproductive rights are inherent and inalienable to her and nobody else, not Mullahs, not Imams, not Protestant preachers, Vatican hierarchy, or even her husband.

Lin,
You said:

I have disagreed with Cheryl on several things but not on the essentials.

I am glad that you brought this up. For some reason Mark seems to think that if egals disagree on any issue, then the egal position doesn’t hold any water. That is certainly not true. We can disagree on the non-essentials and we can learn from each other for surely we all understand that no one is 100% right.

Mark also seems to think that no one is allowed to disagree with me on this blog. That is also far from the truth. This blog is a place where we can share our opinions and the things that we have learned and we can passionately debate our own views. There have been quite a few differences here that have been aired. There is nothing wrong with that. If someone shows me where my view is legitimately wrong, I can check their rebuttal against the Scriptures and if the Scripture does indeed affirm their position, I have the opportunity to change. We all can do this and this is the place to debate these matters in a respectful and brotherly way. No one needs to feel rejected even if their view isn’t accepted. The more information that is given for us to check against the measuring stick of God’s word, the better for all of us. Disagreement will always be welcomed as long as it is respectful and the issues are the things that are debated and focused on, not personal attacks.

I sure appreciate that you have felt free to disagree agreeably. 🙂

gengwall,
You said:

This is actually the point where I differ from most of my egal friends. As Mark has said, there is nothing positive or good in Genesis 3:16b. Just as I can not agree with hard complementarian views that males are the heroes of Genesis 3:16 whose “rule” is simply a godly counter to those evil women and their cunning, sinful, ways, I can also not agree that females are universally the perpetual poor, pitiful, “doormat” victims of those abusive, domineering males. It takes two to tango. I sincerely believe Genesis 3:16b describes how BOTH genders contribute to the breakdown of marriage in this fleshly, sinful world. It contains neither heroes nor martyrs.

I don’t agree either that females are universally the doormat victims of their abusive husbands. But I do think that women “put up” with bad behavior far more than men do. After all in Muslim countries where the women are mistreated and held back, they survive in that abusive environment with an incredible amount of patience yet having a desire to be free from the control. Women seem to be the strong ones who are able to carry on in almost any circumstance.

Hi Cheryl
Thanks for posting this topic it has helped me to understand where you are coming from more fully. I was only away for a couple of days but there has certainly been a lot of talk on this topic in between!

I still have a couple of questions though:

Firstly I understand what you say about the first useage of pain in verse 16 being toil and the logic that this is to do with a shorter lifespan and more babies. The second useage you still seem to interpret as physical pain – “she will still desire her husband in spite of the pain that having his children will cause her” My question is how can a just God inflict this pain on Eve if she is indeed innocent. If she is not innocent as your statements in an answers to Mark might suggest #57 “I agree that Eve fell into sin through deception.” Then how is this pain not a punishment for her sin? – presuming that if she had not have sinned it would have been impossible for a just God to inflict pain on her.

You also make much about God judging between one sin and another – I agree with you that scripture clearly teaches that there is a disparity between sins. However, it is also clear that the consequence of any sin is severe – Leviticus 4 goes on to state that a life must be sacrificed for even an unintentional sin. How can Eve stay in the perfect garden when she no longer meets Gods standards? Surely this must be considered independently of whether Adams sin was worse than Eves – I believe that it was.

Finally I have a question of the nature of Eves deception. When Paul in Romans speaks of being deceived He was deceived as to the right way to act to please God. His persecution of Christians was an ill-informed zeal. Eve here is not deceived in how to please God – she clearly knows she is not to eat the fruit – Eve is deceived into thinking there will be no negative consequences if she does eat the fruit and that it was desirable for gaining wisdom. It would seem to me that this deception occurs despite her previously knowing what was right – if you are correct then God Himself had already told her that she would die if she merely touched it. Eve is deceived into trusting a serpent more than God. I can not see any evidence in the text that her motivation was to please God (unlike Paul) rather it is a selfish ambition to be “like God, knowing good and evil.” Is it really fair to say that Eves sin was so much less than Adams because she was deceived that she was still entitled to stay in the garden? Surely what she was deceived to believe and do was still an affront to God?

Mark,
You said to pinklight:

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

In historical literature a literal interpretation is expected since it is history and history is literal. Genesis is the history of beginnings.

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

It is all historical fact, but the ordered system will be clear within its defining context. That is what we do to allow the Scripture to interpret itself without contradiction.

Scriptural proof for Eve’s leaving is the semantic range of ‘ha’adam’.

Scriptural proof can never hinge on merely the semantic range. Rather the key way of defining the proper meaning will be the context. If a meaning is within the semantic range this doesn’t mean that it can be correct in the context. The context is king and the context will either allow or disallow any one of the usual “allowable” meanings.

It can mean more than one person. Therefore Gen 3:22ff includes Eve, but the text is addressed to the man as the head.

Just because a meaning is allowed within the semantic range doesn’t mean that it is allowed within a particular context. Mark you have to know this if you are training to be a pastor. The context can limit the application of one of meanings.

Mark,
You said:

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

There is no scripture that lists Eve with a “corrupted nature”. There is nothing in the text that says “corruption”.

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.

There is nothing in the text that says “usurp” and her husband would have to have an authority that wasn’t hers to “usurp”. Where did he get such an authority? God didn’t give it to him? Did he take it for himself? Did satan give it to him? Was the authority given to Adam before his wife was created or after? Please fill us in with the “facts”.

I’ve appreciated this discussion, and I wish I had more time to jump in to comment!

Not exposed to many of these gender teachings that are so prevalent today when I was forming my understanding of Scripture, the discussions here are always thought provoking. The forum offers an opportunity to bring what I understand through the reading of the Word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit privately and things I have been taught or heard preached before into a broader audience and into a more specific scrutiny (not guided by my particular denomination’s position).

Oh well. So much to think about and so little time!

Thanks to all.

Hi Gazza, welcome back!

You asked:

Firstly I understand what you say about the first useage of pain in verse 16 being toil and the logic that this is to do with a shorter lifespan and more babies. The second useage you still seem to interpret as physical pain – “she will still desire her husband in spite of the pain that having his children will cause her” My question is how can a just God inflict this pain on Eve if she is indeed innocent.

Pain in this life is a consequence of the death process. It isn’t necessarily a punishment as we don’t usually see God punishing small babies who suffer pain.

God hasn’t told us everything. But He has told us lots to help us understand. Is it okay for God to completely change a woman’s fertility and her cycle so that she is different then she was created to be because she is now in a dying body? Sure. And can this change create pain without it being a punishment? Absolutely. This body of “death” is now on a cycle of pain. If we can understand that the consequences of being in a body that is dying will be pain and we understand that this is not punishment, then is it too hard to see Eve’s pain in childbearing as a natural consequence of an adjustment in a dying body? I just don’t think that we can assume a judgment unless God states that it is a judgment against the woman. Pain is inevitable.

If she is not innocent as your statements in an answers to Mark might suggest #57 “I agree that Eve fell into sin through deception.” Then how is this pain not a punishment for her sin? – presuming that if she had not have sinned it would have been impossible for a just God to inflict pain on her.

Just as with the Jews who thought that the blind man or his parents had sinned and this is why he was “punished” with blindness, we cannot assume that pain or disease is a result of punishment. Jesus said that the blindness did not come because of sin. The fact is that Eve sinned but her pain is not said to be a punishment but a consequence. If God had said that “because you have done this…I am cursing you with…” then we would have to deal with the issue of Eve’s punishment. But we don’t have to deal with consequences of the dying process or the consequences of a change to her fertility either/or causing her pain that she would not have had. As a mother myself who has had three children, I personally don’t think that it is fair that women have to suffer as they do, but I never blamed my suffering on God’s punishment for me being a woman. I expect that we will get all the answers when we get to heaven, but in the meantime I believe very strongly that we are not to read more into the Scripture than it says. If it tells us that the ground was cursed because of Adam, I just accept that. If the scripture says nothing about a curse for Eve and says nothing about her bringing sin into the world, then I just accept that without reading a prejudice against the woman into the passage. Punishment is always clear in the scripture and an additional punishment for Eve is not clear in the passage.

You also make much about God judging between one sin and another – I agree with you that scripture clearly teaches that there is a disparity between sins. However, it is also clear that the consequence of any sin is severe – Leviticus 4 goes on to state that a life must be sacrificed for even an unintentional sin. How can Eve stay in the perfect garden when she no longer meets Gods standards? Surely this must be considered independently of whether Adams sin was worse than Eves – I believe that it was.

Gazza, that is a great question! And it is a question that is clearly answered by the text. There is not a “standard” that needs to be met to stay in the garden. There is only one reason for not being allowed in the garden and only Adam qualified for that reason. You see God didn’t kick the humans out of the garden because they sinned. He kicked Adam out only because the tree of life was now no longer available to him and Adam was in danger of disobeying God and living forever. Notice carefully that it wasn’t the garden that was to be protected from Adam. It was specifically the tree of life. In Genesis 3:22 after God said that Adam may take from the tree of life and live forever, verse 23 starts with “therefore”…

Genesis 3:23 (NASB)
23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken.

God didn’t say that Adam was kicked out because He was a sinner. He was kicked out for one specific reason and that was because he was a threat to eat from the tree of life. So Eve didn’t have to measure up to a “standard” to stay in the garden. She just couldn’t have a rebellious nature that would make her a threat to eat from the tree of life. Does this make sense?

Finally I have a question of the nature of Eves deception. When Paul in Romans speaks of being deceived He was deceived as to the right way to act to please God. His persecution of Christians was an ill-informed zeal.

Gazza, Paul’s deception was more than just “ill-informed zeal”. His deception involved false doctrine that brought about his actions of sin. Paul’s wrong doctrines brought about blasphemy, violence and persecution of God’s people. Paul tell us in 1 Timothy 1 that the law was meant for evil people who do things that are contrary to “sound teaching”.

1 Timothy 1:8–13 (NASB)
8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
12 I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service,
13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

Paul says that he was acting in sin because he was not following sound doctrine but rather he was acting in “unbelief”. When false doctrine is accepted it causes us to break the commandments of God as we follow false human traditions (Matt. 15:3). These false doctrines spoil our minds so that we are so deceived we can think that we are following God when we are actually fighting against God.

Eve here is not deceived in how to please God – she clearly knows she is not to eat the fruit – Eve is deceived into thinking there will be no negative consequences if she does eat the fruit and that it was desirable for gaining wisdom.

I think it goes further than this. Eve believes that there is no real “law” against eating this fruit. She has accepted the false doctrine that eating the fruit is a good thing that has been kept from her and there is no sin in seeking to gain wisdom to be more like God than she already is. Thus when she ate, she was not believing that she was sinning at all. Her previous understanding was not darkened and only the false doctrine taught by the serpent was her “new” truth.

It would seem to me that this deception occurs despite her previously knowing what was right – if you are correct then God Himself had already told her that she would die if she merely touched it. Eve is deceived into trusting a serpent more than God. I can not see any evidence in the text that her motivation was to please God (unlike Paul) rather it is a selfish ambition to be “like God, knowing good and evil.”

The point that Paul makes is that he was acting ignorantly and with unbelief. To say that Paul had not selfish ambitions at all would be overstating the case. After all there is no Scripture that says to kill your Jewish brothers for their particular faith in God. What encouraged Paul to add his own ambition to the point of committing murder?

Yet the real point is not what the exact deception was for both of them, rather it is the fact that both were deceived and they were deceived not because they were wanting to be bad and rebellious people. They were deceived because they believed false doctrine about God. Both then were qualified for mercy because they both sinned in ignorance and in unbelief.

Is it really fair to say that Eves sin was so much less than Adams because she was deceived that she was still entitled to stay in the garden? Surely what she was deceived to believe and do was still an affront to God?

Nothing in the Scriptures say that sin disqualified them from remaining in the garden. And God didn’t say that if you eat of the fruit of this particular tree you will die and I will kick you out of the garden. Being removed from the garden was not a result of sin. It was a result from the continued nature of rebellion. And rebellion is something that is never attributed to Eve. She is said to have been deceived and we know that her deception ended when she understand that she had been lied to. Someone who is no longer deceived and who does not have a nature of rebellion is not a serious threat. If she was, certainly God would have kicked her out to keep her away from the tree of life.

Gazza, I really appreciate your questions. They are well thought-out and come across as being very sincere. I like that. It shows me that you are willing to think these issues through in a non-prejudicial way and to push for answers when the answers given you here seem to contradict the text. I see this as being a real Berean which all of us should strive hard to be. Thanks!

I am always willing to answer questions and to be pushed to prove my points. For if my points do not stand up against the Scripture, they should be dismissed.

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

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.

Eve was saying that the serpent is at fault for the reason why she ate that is, for deceiving her, and the serpent IS at fault! Eve was right in blaming the serpent! Even God blames the serpent right along with the woman! God says to the serpent “Because you have done this”. The serpent is guilty as charged by Eve and God. The one that Eve and God blamed was even cursed by God. Eve blamed someone who was guilty.

God speaks of blame by saying “Because you have done this…” and the result of the blame to the serpent is a curse. It isn’t a guess that God cursed the serpent because the inspired text says “cursed are you…”

So Eve confessed the reason why she ate – she was deceived. Being out of her deception she was aware that the serpent had deceived her. She blamed the guilty. But what about Adam?

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.

Adam was saying that God and the woman were at fault for the reason why he ate. He wasn’t deceived. BUT God and the woman were not at fault! Adam was blaming God and a DECEIVED woman! LOL! Adam was not justified in blaming God and the woman. God doesn’t blame himself or the woman. Rather he blames Adam himself. God and the woman who were blamed were not guilty as charged by Adam but rather God was innocent and the woman was deceived. God never blames the woman as he blames the serpent and Adam by saying “Because you have”.

Adam did not confess the reason why he ate – rebellion. He was not deceived. Still in rebellion (unlike Eve who came out of her deception) he wrongly blames God and the woman. It’s true, Adam did not admit HIS OWN fault, that he rebelled, whereas Eve was DECEIVED so the same kind of admission is impossible.

Adam is also blamed by God in a very similar way:

Genesis 3:17 (NASB) Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

Notice again that God says “Because you have…” This is God’s blame and with the blame brings a curse. ”Cursed is the ground because of you”. The “you” here is singular masculine and the ground was cursed because of only one man’s sin.

Mark, those last two comments of mine were for you.

Eve was at fault for being deceived and she admitted it. Adam though was at fault for rebellion and continuing in rebellion all he did was blame God and the deceived woman.

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.

Eve blames the serpent for deceiving her and rightly so and in turn God curses the serpent. On the other hand Adam blames God and the woman for what he did without justification and God turns right around blames Adam himself and curses the ground for what Adam did. Notice no one that Adam blames is cursed while who Eve blames IS cursed. You still haven’t even been able to establish from the text itself that Eve had the “sin nature” that Adam had. She was a sinner, but not a rebel.

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.

This does not establish that Eve had the “sin nature” that Adam had. In 1 Tim 2 v14 Paul isn’t talking about Eve like he was in v13. Do you see the name “Eve” in v14? Notice that in v14 Paul drops using her proper name since he’s switching back to talking about the false teacher or “a woman” of v11. Eve is a sinner yes, but not a rebel with the sin nature of Adam.

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.

Eve wasn’t born of Adam so she does not inherit a sin nature. Sin comes into the world through Adam not Eve. No where does scripture teach that she was a rebel like Adam. They both sinned so they both died, but only one was a rebel.

The only thing that Adam was leader of was rebellion and he got a one way ticket out of the garden for it. ;P

Isn’t it interesting how tradition has taught us to look at Eve as if she was punished for being deceived yet it was Adam who was banished and thrown out of the garden for his rebellious nature?

Hi Cheryl
Thankyou for being willing to open the bible and explain your viewpoint from the text, I am still digesting your last answers but one follow –up question if I may:
Dosn’t living in the garden go hand in hand with eating from the tree of life and not dying (Gen 3:22)? If Eve is to die as a consequence of her sin then can she still have access to the tree?

Since Adam named the animals wouldn’t it make sense that he had come across the serpent earlier. Even named him?

Gazza,

You said:

Thankyou for being willing to open the bible and explain your viewpoint from the text, I am still digesting your last answers but one follow –up question if I may:
Dosn’t living in the garden go hand in hand with eating from the tree of life and not dying (Gen 3:22)? If Eve is to die as a consequence of her sin then can she still have access to the tree?

Gazza, I am at your service and very happy to serve in anyway I can. The answer to your question is that God originally gave both Adam and Eve freedom to eat from every tree in the garden except for one but the freedom to eat from the fruit of the tree of life must be removed as God said that they would die if they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God can take away His permission to eat from that tree and it was a necessity to forbid them to eat of life since they MUST die. Eve was not kicked out of the garden as she was not rebellious and from this we can understand that she would have obeyed the new prohibition that took away the fruit of life. Living in the garden was not an automatic permission to eat from every tree. After all they were living in the garden where one tree was already forbidden to them, right? Once Eve’s eyes were opened to the deception and she received the prohibition that removed her freedom to eat from the tree of life, a now-wise woman without a rebellious nature would obey so she could stay. Adam is the one who, with his new sin nature that brings continual rebellion, would surely be a constant threat. God then kicks him out and puts an angel to guard the “way” to the tree of life. It sure seems to me that once Eve is out of the garden she isn’t getting back in because it appears that there is only one “way” in. Kind of like this way is a symbol of Jesus being the only “way” to life. The angel won’t let anyone near the tree of life but the angel would not have been necessary as a guard if there had been no threat from Adam, but for sure Eve would not have permission to eat from the tree of life as she must also die.

pinklight,
You said:

The only thing that Adam was leader of was rebellion and he got a one way ticket out of the garden for it. ;P.

You have so many very insightful comments. I will be going through the comments again later as I have time. Today is another one of those extremely busy days for me.

Lin,
You said:

Since Adam named the animals wouldn’t it make sense that he had come across the serpent earlier. Even named him?

Great thought! Yes, I am sure that Adam named the serpent and he saw his nature from his creation. Could he even have seen satan enter the serpent? Perhaps and perhaps that is why he too knew that the garden needed to be guarded. This part is speculation but we do know for sure that Adam was not deceived.

I don’t agree either that females are universally the doormat victims of their abusive husbands. But I do think that women “put up” with bad behavior far more than men do. After all in Muslim countries where the women are mistreated and held back, they survive in that abusive environment with an incredible amount of patience yet having a desire to be free from the control. Women seem to be the strong ones who are able to carry on in almost any circumstance.

Culture has certainly been lopsided through history – there is no doubt about that. But I don’t think that Gen 3:16 is trying to tells how culture is going to tilt over the centuries. I believe it is telling us something fundamental about men and women and their equal potential for actions that are detrimental to marriage. After all, although most cultures have been patriarchal not all have, and although many men are the primary modeler of Gen 3:16 in individual marriages it is not always so. For every anecdotal patient, accommodating, doormat wife we can find a patient, accommodating hen-pecked husband. So, although I agree with your assessment of history in its practical application of Gen 3:16, I don’t believe that tips the balance in what the verse is saying about wives and husbands generically. In other words, I don’t think the verse is presenting a case of “bad spouse; worse spouse”, and it certainly is not presenting a “good spouse; bad spouse” scenario.

Consider: if the verse is saying that males and females both have equal potential to bring strife into marriage, and if the male version of strife is brought about through “rule”, what do we have left to identify the source of female induced strife? The only parallel term we have is “desire”, is it not? The idea that “desire” is “good in the husband’s eyes” and is merely an expression of patience and perseverance, or that it is an perfectly understandable “desire to be free from the control” of male rule, leaves nothing in the verse detrimental to the marriage related to wives. In this view, Gen 3:16 clearly labels men as tyrants because their “rule” is tyrannical (demonstrably so). But women get the opposite treatment. They are clearly labeled as martyrs because their “desire” is either a justifiable revulsion to the tyranny or a dutiful submission to the tyranny. If “desire” is the antithesis of “rule” instead of a parallel detrimental action, the verse is horribly unbalanced against men.

I’m sure you will understand that I, as a man, have a very difficult time accepting such a conclusion. I don’t believe men are more capable or inclined than women of bringing strife into marriage even though they have more often been guilty of it throughout history. And I certainly don’t believe that men are the only gender that brings strife, with women being the only gender that suffers from it. I also don’t believe that God, in the quintessential verse on division in marriage, would be so lopsided. So, I can’t come to your conclusion about what “desire” entails, even though I can not myself put my finger on it. I just know that whatever it is, its character contains no noble elements like patience, perseverance, and a desire for liberty. In my opinion, it is just plain bad, as bad as “rule”, and its manifestation is injurious to husbands just as the manifestation of “rule” is injurious to wives.

Hi Cheryl

In vs 22 the problem with man – be it adam or mankind – is not said to be his sin nature but that he now knows good from evil – it would seem that this is a result of eating the fruit. Does Eve not also know good from evil?

It is also interesting that while God physically prevents a return to the tree of life a prohibition from eating of this fruit is never made.

117 Gengwall,

I agree completely. Maybe it’s because I graduated from high school last year and then lived in an all-girls dorm for this year college, but women are no angels. We are every bit as power hungry and sinful as men. “Mean Girls” may be a movie, but it is not fiction.

Cheryl,
Some questions:
1) Is it possible that Eve sinned after leaving the garden and so her sin nature came a different way than Adam?

2) Since sin is sin, regardless of deception, could her so-called “punishments” have been instead corruptions? Like God saying “I am not punishing you but here are the natural consequences of your decision.” That is what my parents do when I make a bad decision based on false information, so just a thought.

3) “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Enabling bad/abusive behavior is just as bad (in my opinion almost worse) as being abusive yourself. Could this “turning/desire” be the when women worshiped the acquiring of a husband? I know many women (from many backgrounds) whose sole goal is to lay claim to a man and they will justify anything he does, because they only see him as an extension of themselves, not as a human being.

Gazza,

The problem is the sin nature if you read it without the filters of tradition. It doesn’t say that he knows good and evil as if the fruit gave him that knowledge. The grammar is the perfect tense which is an action completed but with continuing effects. The question we need to ask ourselves is when did Adam know the difference between good and evil and when did he become like God?

If we believe the lying words of the serpent, Adam just became like God and just came to know good and evil when he ate the fruit. But that can’t be true. Remember two things…Adam (and Eve) were made in the image of God right from the beginning and the Scripture says that Adam was not deceived which means that he had to know the difference between good and evil not to be deceived. He knew that what the serpent was saying was a lie. He did not believe it.

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.

Notice next that God says “but now”…. But now, what? But now (in the state that he is in – with a sin nature) it is not good that he lives forever in that state. So in order that he might not live forever by taking of the fruit which no longer belongs to him, he was forced out.

The biggest key here is to notice that Jesus said that there is no truth in satan.

John 8:44 (NASB)
44 “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

If he is the father of lies and there is no truth in him then the serpent could not be speaking the truth when he said that they would be like God knowing god and evil.

Since Adam already knew what good and evil as he was not deceived, and he was no more like God than he was when he was created, the serpent lied and God isn’t agreeing with the serpent. In fact it is just the opposite. God is saying that Adam was created like God and he knew enough about good and evil not to be deceived but now he had become evil in his transgression and he cannot live forever in this state.

I believe that this is the only way that we can read this passage using the inspired grammar and not having God confirm that the serpent was telling the truth. We need to understand that the serpent was lying and God was not confirming the lie.

It is also interesting that while God physically prevents a return to the tree of life a prohibition from eating of this fruit is never made.

The new prohibition is not directly stated but the actions resulting from the prohibition are clearly shown. The fact is that God told them that they would die if they ate the forbidden fruit. They aren’t going to die if they eat the fruit and then continue to eat the fruit of the tree of life. Remember that this is God’s testimony that if Adam stretched forth his hand and take and eat from fruit of the tree of life, he would live forever. So the tree of life had to be forbidden to them.

An interesting side note is that according to Eve’s testimony they were forbidden to “touch” and “eat” of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now they were forbidden to “take” and “eat” of the tree of life. It was two actions that are no longer allowed – no taking and no eating – and thus Adam was sent away.

So we do not have to have a direct quote from God to know that there was now a prohibition about the tree of life because of God’s words while talking to Himself and God’s actions (removing Adam so he could not “take” and “eat”).

So to recap, the serpent said that “in the day” that they ate, they would know good and evil and on that day they would be like God. But God said that they were created like God. They could not become any more like Him and they did not become more like Him when they ate the fruit. Adam already knew the difference between good and evil since he was not deceived. There was no “wisdom” obtained by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. But they did experience evil (one by his rebellion and one by her deception).

I hope this helps a bit for you to work through this passage to allow it to make sense.

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.

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’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.

Hello Mark,

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.

You just said here that in 3:9 ‘ha’adam’ refers to one man excluding Eve. So who’s being refered to in 3:19 when God is still talking to the one man? The same one man is being refered to, right? Is it the same one who was taken from the ground being refered to in 3:23?

3:17
To Adam he said…
3:19
By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were TAKEN;

3:23
So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been TAKEN.

Adam specificaly says that woman was “taken” from man in Gen 2. (Same Hebrew words). The bible makes it very CLEAR who was “taken” from what or who.

Mark,

This comment is also posted above in #73. Please do not overlook it. I’m re-posting it now.

If you are going to claim that Eve blamed someone else for her SIN then you MUST also claim that even Paul also blames someone else for Eve’s sin. To say that she blamed the serpent for her SIN is not correct.

…blames someone else for her sin

Gen 3:1
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made.

Gen 3:13
The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

2 Co 11
3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning,

Now Adam on the other hand DID blame others for his SIN and the reason why this is accurate is because he wasn’t deceived into sinning. He was rather a rebel.

Mark,
You said to pinklight:

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.

The sin nature is revealed through continued rebellion. We know that Adam has this rebellious sin nature because God says that Adam is the one who may rebel again and take and eat from the fruit of the tree of life. God also says in Hosea 6:7 that Adam had dealt treacherously with Him. And it was Paul who said that it was one man alone (Adam) who brought sin into the world. All of the evidence is that Adam was continuing in his rebellion because he had a sin nature and that sin nature was passed on to us so that we are all naturally rebellious against God’s rules.

But where is Eve ever called rebellious? God does not say that Eve dealt treacherously with Him, nor does Paul or any other author say that Eve’s sin is passed on to her offspring. Where could Eve have received this sin nature of rebellion? She could not have inherited it from Adam? I challenge anyone to give a Scripture that lists Eve as bringing sin into the world or passing rebellion onto her offspring or even a hint of rebellion that would have caused God to kick her out of the garden.

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)

Mark, what you don’t seem to get is that we all agree that Eve sinned. It is the issue of continued sin through a nature of rebellion that is the issue. If you believe that the Bible affirms that an innocent person who was deceived into sinning will get a a nature of rebellion from that, then you will need to prove this from the Scripture. God draws a line between Adam’s sin and Eve’s sin and only one of their sins was done in rebellion and the taint of rebellion was only upon one of them.

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.

Verse 14 is about “the woman”, the one who is still in that transgression. She is still deceived and still in that sin, but this can’t be Eve as Eve is dead and gone. The one who is continuing (perfect tense) in the state of sin is alive at the time of Paul’s writing.

gengwall said:

Of course, as Mark surely knows, this is half what I believe. I would not say that her desire is to usurp her husband’s authority because I do not believe any authority has been granted to the husband. I am not certain what her desire is for. I only believe that it is negative to the marriage. But her husband has no authority over her to usurp, so that can;t be it.

I think that to understand the after fall account we must be able to separate Eve from the daughters of Adam. Eve did not inherit a sin nature from Adam but all women since then have inherited his sin nature. What women do in their sin now cannot be read back into Eve’s actions because of the issue of our sin nature is not there for Eve.

I think that there is a lot in Scripture that we can use to teach on marriage and Genesis 3:16 certainly has some problems with man’s rule, but can we really attribute sinful characteristics of all women to what Eve did?

I think we must think this one through. Inherited sin is rebellion against God. While Eve showed shame after she sinned, did she also show rebellion? I just can’t see any Scripture that tells us that she was in rebellion. And if she was not in rebellion, then must her “desire” be a sinful thing? The context will be key. Where is any negative word used of Eve toward Adam? Where is any sinful word used alongside of “desire” to make it sin? We can’t use Adam’s actions to qualify “desire” as sin, since it is said to be her action not his. So if we really want to seriously think this one through, where are we going to research and find a sin nature attributed to Eve?

Now all of Adam’s daughters struggle with some kind of sin. They are not perfect and they are not usually 100% blameless for a marriage breakup because both parties are sinners. But I don’t think that it is fair to Eve to attach our sin to her character. Thoughts?

gengwall, you said:

Is Adam’s “rule” a good thing in Eve’s eyes? Certainly not. I don’t believe her “desire” is any less favorable in his eyes. Cheryl, your stance seems to be that Adam’s “rule” is simply taking advantage of the prostrate Eve, who now, dutifully, with narry a harsh word or action, follows almost trancelike after her abusive husband. In this view, his “rule” has nothing to do with anything negative she has done, but is just a senseless, cruel, response to her “good in his eyes” “desire”. That makes wives universally the martyrs and completely exonerates them of any negative behavior toward their husbands which would lead to marital discord.

Remember I said that I believe that Eve left the garden for two reasons. One was because she desired the man and the other would be because he took his rule over her. Adam’s rule had nothing at all to do with his wife’s actions. An abusive rule has no blame on anyone but the perpetrator. If we excuse Adam saying that perhaps he was 80% to blame but she was 20% to blame, then we fall into the trap of giving an excuse for the perpetrator. Now if any one of us women were there as sinners we are, then perhaps we might have pushed his buttons, but Eve was not a rebellious sinner like we are. Adam has to take full accountability for taking dominion over his wife who was the only woman in the world who did not have a sin nature. There was no excuse for him to eat the fruit and there is no excuse for him to rule the woman. Not even one hint of an excuse. And if anyone thinks otherwise, then please educate me.

gengwall, you also said:

Is Adam not a hostile enough character for you? Even if the antagonism were only one way – like it is with Cain and Able in Gen 4:8 where el is translated “against” – that is enough to consider that Eve’s “turning” was against Adam. I think a translation of “against” is at least on the table.

I am not trying to be contentious at all. I just want the truth of God’s word as it is written without our tradition twisting the text. Adam’s antagonism toward Eve cannot be used to make her “desire” into a negative thing. At least not without some term that makes her with a negative intention toward her husband. While I can admit that the word can have a negative meaning, we need to be very careful to not attach a negative meaning when the context doesn’t warrant it.

No sin nature came through Jesus through the line of the woman.
Why is that? Is it because she didn’t have a sin nature and that only one person brought rebellion into the world? That is how I see the it so clearly in all of the Scriptures. Those who think that Eve had a sin nature will then have to explain to me why Jesus could not have a human father but He could have a human mother if both of them carried the sin nature?

Greg,
You said:

I can’t say that I agree though, that increased pregnancies was God’s ordained way to ensure the survival of humankind so much as it was just another aspect of a broken and messed-up creation.

I would be interested in your take on the “greatly increased conception” and an explanation for why there was no conception before the fall?

Cindy K said:

Not exposed to many of these gender teachings that are so prevalent today when I was forming my understanding of Scripture, the discussions here are always thought provoking. The forum offers an opportunity to bring what I understand through the reading of the Word under the guidance of the Holy Spirit privately and things I have been taught or heard preached before into a broader audience and into a more specific scrutiny (not guided by my particular denomination’s position).

I praise God for the opportunity to have iron sharpening iron here and for us all to passionately think through these issues. I don’t recall anyone in my growing up years who challenged me to think outside of tradition and to think from the text alone. I sure wish I had started earlier!

pinklight, you said:

Eve wasn’t born of Adam so she does not inherit a sin nature. Sin comes into the world through Adam not Eve. No where does scripture teach that she was a rebel like Adam. They both sinned so they both died, but only one was a rebel.

Always excellent reasoning coming from you. I sometimes wonder if staying up late is good for the brain. It seems to do you good 😉

gengwall you said:

So, although I agree with your assessment of history in its practical application of Gen 3:16, I don’t believe that tips the balance in what the verse is saying about wives and husbands generically. In other words, I don’t think the verse is presenting a case of “bad spouse; worse spouse”, and it certainly is not presenting a “good spouse; bad spouse” scenario.

I don’t think that Genesis 3:16 is all about everyone’s marriage. I do believe that it shows Adam’s rebellion and the tendency for the majority of men to struggle with wanting to control shows that somehow this tendency has come through Adam’s sons. Some women also have a sin problem with control, but typically it is far less in women then in men. But Genesis 3:16 is all about Adam and Eve and so we cannot get information about most wives from someone who didn’t inherit the sin nature that the rest of us have.

gengwall,
You said:

If “desire” is the antithesis of “rule” instead of a parallel detrimental action, the verse is horribly unbalanced against men.

I’m sure you will understand that I, as a man, have a very difficult time accepting such a conclusion. I don’t believe men are more capable or inclined than women of bringing strife into marriage even though they have more often been guilty of it throughout history. And I certainly don’t believe that men are the only gender that brings strife, with women being the only gender that suffers from it.

Men are certainly not the only gender that brings strife into the marriage. But in the Christian community I do believe that if men followed God’s command to love their wives, and they truly sacrificed for them, most marriages would not only survive but flourish. Most women desire to be loved this way and when their needs are met they are happy and contented to meet his needs. For some reason we think that women should be the ones to sacrifice first, but I believe that the best balance comes when the husband takes the place of one who loves and serves. It just isn’t easy for a man to do this even though in his head he knows that he has been called to love her this way.

This will be my last comment for tonight.

Nicole, you asked:

Some questions:
1) Is it possible that Eve sinned after leaving the garden and so her sin nature came a different way than Adam?

If this was so, then Eve’s children would also have inherited her sin nature. The problem with this is that there is no Scripture to say that she had a sin nature, where it came from, or why her descendants didn’t inherit it.

2) Since sin is sin, regardless of deception, could her so-called “punishments” have been instead corruptions? Like God saying “I am not punishing you but here are the natural consequences of your decision.” That is what my parents do when I make a bad decision based on false information, so just a thought.

Well, I do believe that the necessity to “greatly increase” her conception was a consequence that would have to naturally follow her being in the death process. But as far as a “natural consequence” that is actually a punishment, her punishment is what God had told her from the beginning. It was that she would die. The only real punishment that came was to the one who deceived her (he was cursed) and the one who failed to protect her (he had a curse placed on his behalf).

3) “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Enabling bad/abusive behavior is just as bad (in my opinion almost worse) as being abusive yourself. Could this “turning/desire” be the when women worshiped the acquiring of a husband? I know many women (from many backgrounds) whose sole goal is to lay claim to a man and they will justify anything he does, because they only see him as an extension of themselves, not as a human being.

As far as women who enable bad abusive behavior, I think that this is not a good thing. I cannot qualify Eve’s patience with Adam since I don’t know what she did or didn’t do about his bad behavior. There is just not enough evidence to make a judgment call. I just know that Eve did not inherit a sin nature from Adam and her sin was not an act of rebellion as his was.

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?

What problem? It’s not just what he said but ultimately why he said what he did – which was out of rebellion. Since he knew better, knew what he was doing when he went to eat, what was his reason then for bringing up God and the woman?

When you read Adam you read into it that he is blaming someone else,

Not true. The serpent did something to Eve, the serpent changed Eve’s mind by deceiving her. On the other hand God and the woman did no such thing to Adam. They didn’t do something to him. So why did Adam bring them up? They didn’t get him to eat, but the serpent got the woman to eat.
So I simply read the words of a man in rebellion. Do you claim that he was no longer rebellious when he answered God? Same thing with Eve. I simply read the words of a woman who was no longer deceived.

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.

No, the problem is that you are assuming about Eve. You are assuming that she was like Adam in her sin when the text tells us otherwise. She is being exonerated though btw, but just not from her sin. 🙂

The serpent was cursed for what it did – it deceived Eve. Therefore I think it’s pretty important that we get straight that there is a difference in the way Adam and Eve sinned, and a difference for why each said what they did. Eve had a reason for bringing up the serpent for what it did to her, but what was Adam’s reason for bringing up God and the woman when they did nothing to him?

Cheryl,
Arriving late to this discussion about your post – due to travel – with my “2 cents” to add…

The more I read Gen. 1-3, the more it seems apparent to me, that comparing Adam and Eve’s marriage to anyone else’s marriage since then, is like comparing apples to rocks. Eve was not one of Adam’s daughters. Eve was his ‘ezer kenegdo.’

In all marriages after Adam and Eve’s, all the women/wives are Adam’s descendents.

It appears to me, that like Adam, that we, his descendents, struggle with wanting to control others.

This struggle for controling other’s is just that same old basic sin of selfishness – it manifests in lying, cheating, stealing, manipulating, you name it… but it’s all the same thing – not loving others as we love ourselves.

pinklight,
You said:

The serpent was cursed for what it did – it deceived Eve. Therefore I think it’s pretty important that we get straight that there is a difference in the way Adam and Eve sinned, and a difference for why each said what they did. Eve had a reason for bringing up the serpent for what it did to her, but what was Adam’s reason for bringing up God and the woman when they did nothing to him?

You have done a good job in answering Mark. Eve certainly had a good reason for saying that the serpent deceived her as it was true.

Now as far as Adam goes, when God said that he listened to the voice of his wife, there is no record of his wife speaking to him when she offered him the fruit. His “listening” was when his wife was speaking to the serpent and Adam did nothing. This is the rebuke that came from God. Adam not only ate the fruit but he merely listened to his wife being deceived, when he knew better because he was not deceived – and he did nothing. Think of this – Adam was not deceived and he tried to blame his wife (and God!) for giving him the fruit. His blame was worthless. It was not true. His wife did not deceive him. He ate of his own free will with the knowledge that what he was doing was wrong. This was his rebellion and his claim that his wife was to blame was not true. God did not curse his wife for tempting her husband or giving the fruit to her husband. God would have done this if Adam’s accusations were right. But Adam had no one to blame but himself. Therefore Adam did not place the blame in an honest way while Eve did.

Thanks for all your thoughts, pinklight. Keep up the good work!

Kay,

The more I read Gen. 1-3, the more it seems apparent to me, that comparing Adam and Eve’s marriage to anyone else’s marriage since then, is like comparing apples to rocks. Eve was not one of Adam’s daughters. Eve was his ‘ezer kenegdo.’

This is exactly right! In the issue of marriage I don’t think that we can use Eve as an example of all women since Eve is not one of Adam’s daughters. It is when we treat her as if she is one of us (a woman with Adam’s sin nature) that we can misunderstand what was written about her. I believe that we need to start thinking outside the box about Eve and understanding her from the perspective of a sinless woman who fell into sin through deception and then went on with her life with her eyes opened but without the rebellious sin nature that was in her husband. If ever there was a recipe for strife this would be it. But they managed to stay together and have kids together. There is probably a lot that we can learn from this example but one thing that we cannot forget is that Eve was not tainted by Adam’s sin nature. If we forget that we can come to some wrong conclusions.

This is just another area where we need to rethink our presuppositions about the Scripture. Rethinking also stretches me as I try hard to work off my own prejudices and presuppositions so that I can see what the Scripture itself says.

“This is exactly right! In the issue of marriage I don’t think that we can use Eve as an example of all women since Eve is not one of Adam’s daughters. It is when we treat her as if she is one of us (a woman with Adam’s sin nature) that we can misunderstand what was written about her.”

Oh my!!! This is stark double speak and I must protest. Everyone talks about how Eve’s “desire” represents something that all wives will gravitate towards just as Adam’s “rule” is applied to husbands. Eve has always been discussed as representative of wives. But now, suddenly, when the issue is raised that maybe this “desire” is negative, wives are no longer in view? Now only Adam is representative of male spouses but Eve is not representative of female spouses? I guess that means then, since both husbands and wives are children of Adam, that they will ALL tend to “rule” and the “desire” from Gen 3:16 ONLY applies to Eve herself and nobody else! I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. Is Gen 3:16b about marriage and both husbands and wives, or only about Adam and Eve?

Cheryl – do you believe Eve was sinless after she left the garden?

“But in the Christian community I do believe that if men followed God’s command to love their wives, and they truly sacrificed for them, most marriages would not only survive but flourish.”

I trust then that you believe that if women followed God’s command to reverence their husbands, and they truly sacrificed for them in a way that is meaningful for men, that marriages would flourish as well.

“I don’t think that Genesis 3:16 is all about everyone’s marriage.”

Of course it isn’t in application. Not all husbands “rule” over their wives, for example. But don’t you believe all husbands have an inclination to rule and that relates directly back to this verse?

“I do believe that it shows Adam’s rebellion and the tendency for the majority of men to struggle with wanting to control shows that somehow this tendency has come through Adam’s sons. Some women also have a sin problem with control, but typically it is far less in women then in men.”

Not so! Men tend to enforce control through physical means, making it much more visible to the outside world. But that is no proof that men are more controlling, just that they go about it in a different way than women.

I am at a loss as to how anyone who knows anything about ancient history can ignore the fact that the sin of Patriarchy was institutionalized after the fall. The results of the fall that we read about right away with Lamech, and on through the OT, only prove that the sins of the fall would result in women turning toward men for all their needs and men would in return, rule over them. I mean this is the basis of history until the last 100 years in some form or another. There might be a few matriarchal cultures but they are quite rare and are usually the result of men refusing to work.

Even as women were treated better as time marched on, they still could not own property without a man’s permission. And voting for women is relatively new from a historical perspective. Why? Because patriarchy was seen as God’s intention.

Even the OT laws, written to deal with sinful hearts, we see God regulating how women are treated. Women were mostly seen as child bearers for the husband. And a male son was worth more to the husband. The horrible way women were viewed is a direct result of sin and institutionalized patriarchy. It is all a result of sin.

And if she could not bear children she was viewed as worthless. Look at polygamy in the OT. And even today, women in Muslim countries live close to how women lived in ancient history. (Ever read the code of Hammurabi? My goodness! Women had it much worse under the pagans)

Now, what about the sins of women in marriage within a patriarchal society? It is usually manipulation. Something that is culturally acceptable. So yes, women are sinful but to think that Gen 3 means she wanted usurp his authority, we have historical proof that is not true.

I believe that the ‘desire/ turning’ is negative because she turns away from her personal relationship with God and turns toward her husband instead. I do not think that is positive at all.

Which is why Jesus Christ is such an awesome Savior!

“Of course it isn’t in application. Not all husbands “rule” over their wives, for example. But don’t you believe all husbands have an inclination to rule and that relates directly back to this verse?”

I think you guys are talking about two different things. A husband’s rule was institutionalized sin within the culture and society.
(remember: Better to burn Torah than teach it to a woman)

Jesus Christ can change that. I wish the comps could understand that an adult believer wanting rule over another adult beliver is sin and in many cases actually ‘usurps’ the function of the Holy spirit within that believer.

“I think you guys are talking about two different things. A husband’s rule was institutionalized sin within the culture and society.”

So let me get this straight. Your position is that God is saying in Genesis 3:16 that although “all have sinned”, men and women alike, Men specifically will be the ones who will predominantly sin when it comes to marriage. That patriarchy is not a result of the male’s ability through greater physical strength to impose rule, but that instead that men are simply MORE sinful when it comes to the marital relationship. That patriarchy is the predominant result in the world because, at least where gender relations are concerned, most men are bad and most women are good.

I think you are victim of a form of the “correlation=causation” falacy Lin. Just because patriarchy has been the predominant social institution in the world does not prove that men are the predominantly sinful gender. I see no evidence in biblical teaching that shows men to be more naturally sinful than women in any social context, let alone marriage. Men may act out their sin in more demonstrative ways. And they may “get their way” more because of their physical superiority (although getting one’s way is a rather subjective thing). But that doesn’t mean that men are more sinful than women. If Gen 3:16 is all about the men, that is fine, but where is the balancing scripture that is all about the women. Where do we find the fundimental female causation for strife in marriage, if it is not in Gen 3:16?

I am having a really hard time trying to phrase this so you all will understand how terribly insulting this is to men. Another attempt.

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 #140,

Cheryl – do you believe Eve was sinless after she left the garden?

The Bible doesn’t say whether she ever sinned again or not. We do know that a sinless person can choose to sin eitherwise neither Adam or Eve could have sinned in the first place. But the sin nature that Adam had is a propensity to sin, not just an ability to sin. Eve did not inherit that sin nature and nothing in the text said that she had a nature of rebellion. That is really what I am keying in on. The discussion is the texts at hand and what Eve did afterwards is speculation. While none of us can choose to not sin and just decide to never sin again since our since nature causes us to fail even good intentions, I believe that Eve was able to choose not to sin.

Does this help to answer your question?

gengwall,

Oh my!!! This is stark double speak and I must protest. Everyone talks about how Eve’s “desire” represents something that all wives will gravitate towards just as Adam’s “rule” is applied to husbands. Eve has always been discussed as representative of wives. But now, suddenly, when the issue is raised that maybe this “desire” is negative, wives are no longer in view?

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. We as women are all flawed just like our husbands.

So to recap, Eve was a woman like us, but she was not a rebellious sinner like us. If I am wrong about that and God, Eve or any of the apostles described Eve as a rebellious sinner with a rebellious sin nature, then I stand to be corrected.

I see it as important because Jesus came through a woman yet had no sin nature. Jesus came through a sinner (Mary) yet her seed brought no sin nature. If Genesis helps us understand that, then the account of Eve’s fall into sin will help us in other areas too.

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.

‘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.

gengwall,
You said:

I trust then that you believe that if women followed God’s command to reverence their husbands, and they truly sacrificed for them in a way that is meaningful for men, that marriages would flourish as well.

Absolutely, yes! But I think that our society has put too much emphasis on the wife initiating when it is the husband who is called to sacrifice as Jesus sacrificed for His bride. Yet I do believe that marriages would be helped if the wife gave her husband respect even if he didn’t “earn” it. This is exactly what I did in my marriage years ago. I believe that the Lord Jesus taught me this when I no longer had love for my husband because of the way he treated me. I told him how I loved the way he combed his hair or I loved the color of the shirt that he chose to wear. I told him whatever truthful thing that I could to show him respect and he did respond. But if he had treated me with love to begin with I would never have lost love for him. Sometimes we are called to sacrifice when our husbands have failed to hold up their end and to sacrifice for us. I believe that the Lord Jesus taught me that I am accountable for myself and that I cannot use the excuse that my husband isn’t doing his part. When I gave first without seeing any response for a long time and I continued to do my part instead of responding to his hurtful actions, it really did help him to see that he didn’t deserve me. It still was a long road towards full healing.

While I believe that the husband has the responsibility to initiate the sacrificial love for his wife, I do not believe that any of us is allowed to sit back and wait for this. We do our part and give it to God and don’t worry if we are not getting our fair share back. We are accountable for our relationship with God and our own actions whether we are getting love or not.

However I do believe that comp counselors focus way too much on women in asking them to submit and let the men go scott-free. It is so easy for a woman to submit to a man who loves and sacrifices his life for her. But a wife who loves and respects her husband does not always get the same back. Sometimes it just promotes more selfishness. This is why I think that men are to initiate because if the sacrifice starts with them, and their wives respond in the biblical way there is a much greater opportunity for oneness, healing and union.

Does this make sense?

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.

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.

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

“I am having a really hard time trying to phrase this so you all will understand how terribly insulting this is to men. Another attempt.

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.
”

And I was trying to explain it so it would NOT be insulting! I certainly failed at that!

My point is that patriarchy institutionalized and made the sin of ‘ruling’ over a cultural endeavor. It made it not only normal but expected. (And God works through this societal sin for His own purposes. INcluding allowing polygamy which is horrible)

We see instances of partriarchal sin being overridden in the OT but for the most part it was societal in general and a result of the fall. It was not God ordained as comps want us to believe.

Of course there were manipulating women. Look at Sarah insisting Abe have sex with her maid! And he did it! (There is that tango. right?)

But the sin of patriarchal society made her to be worthless without bearing a son. This is just one example of many.

Please do NOT be offended. You are one of the good guys who sees us as equal in being co heirs in EVERYTHING the Lord has for us.

“While I believe that the husband has the responsibility to initiate the sacrificial love for his wife”

Here is an example for Mark that Cheryl and I can disagree. I disagree with this because in Eph 5, the teaching starts earlier with we must be filled with the Spirit and then that we must all submit to one another. I do not see any command that one initiates first. If there is one, I would love to see it.

gengwall,
You said:

Not so! Men tend to enforce control through physical means, making it much more visible to the outside world. But that is no proof that men are more controlling, just that they go about it in a different way than women.

I think that men tend to be more controlling and women tend to be more manipulative.

Do I think that marriage is “an irretrievably unbalanced relationship and it’s all men’s fault”. No. I do believe that the problems in Adam and Eve’s relationship from what was recorded in Genesis was 100% his fault. But that does not follow through from all of our marriages. Every marriage and every situation is different but there are things that sinful humans bring into the marriage because of their gender.

I really like Mark Gungor’s series “Laugh your way to a better marriage”. To me he hits the nail on the head regarding gender issues in marriage.

gengwall,
You said:

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 for sure would have a problem living without getting overly angry or responding in sin to a husband who took dominion over me, but how would a woman who doesn’t have a sin nature fair? She would handle it better than I for sure. The issue is that nowhere does the Scripture talk about Eve having a sin nature and speculation about how she did that in the sinful world isn’t probably helpful.

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.

We would have to assume that Genesis 3:16 is predicting her sin but the language used isn’t telling us that especially without an antagonist character shown in the passage.

And what would Eve’s practicing sin after sin after sin do to her future seed? When would a practice of sin become a sin nature? And if she had a sin nature why do her offspring not become affected by this sin nature? Do you see how the way we view Eve has further implications for her offspring and that one special “seed”?

Still not buying it. Adam, on the other hand, is universally like all husbands who bring only bad things to marriage?

No, I don’t think so. Adam was one who was said to have acted treacherously. If I put beside Adam the godly men that I know, I don’t think that any of them would act like Adam did. I think they would speak out and not let their wives be deceived. Adam was one man who was unique. He alone brought sin into the world and he represents not just husbands but all of us in our sinful ways.

Where is the verse that describes the good things husbands bring to marriage?

Jesus is the best example of a godly husband and those who follow his example are to be commended.

Where is the verse that describes the bad things wives bring to marriage?

Here it is:

Proverbs 25:24 (NASB) It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman.

I guess you can call this one “the nag”.

This still leaves the situation at “good spouse, bad spouse” in God’s only predictive statement about marriage as it relates to the fall.

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.

gengwall,

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.

I sense that you are highly offended and I did not mean to cause an offense. I gave my opinions on sacrifice but I did not intend to say that it is all men’s fault. In fact in some situations it isn’t the man’s fault at all. The only time that I see it as the man’s fault alone is in the case of Adam and hopefully we can all agree on that.

Lin,

Here is an example for Mark that Cheryl and I can disagree. I disagree with this because in Eph 5, the teaching starts earlier with we must be filled with the Spirit and then that we must all submit to one another. I do not see any command that one initiates first. If there is one, I would love to see it.

I don’t think that the Bible commands that one initiates submission first for either gender. I think that is equal. But I do see a responsibility for men to sacrifice first and Jesus loved and sacrificed for his Bride. If we take Jesus and His bride as a symbol of the husband and wife, it does seem to me that she loves Him because He first loved her and sacrificed for her. I don’t see any indication of God going to the church and saying that if we just loved Jesus more, He would treat us better. No, what I see is that He loves unconditionally first. He sacrifices first. We are commanded to submit, to respond to Him and to love Him. But in the best typology of marriage, it is Jesus first and He takes responsibility first. And it is so EASY to love Jesus when he sacrificed first. If this is true, which I believe it to be so, why do counselors seem to focus on women first? They must try harder and harder so that the man can respond.

Maybe I am way off base, but I think that if Christian men would be more like Jesus and focused on the bride, we would all respond. It is really difficult to keep a grudge when the man is loving and sacrificing for us. This is our knight in shining armor. This is Christlikeness in marriage.

But the neat thing is that we get to initiate too whether he does or not. We become Christlike and follow the only one who has never failed us. We women can make a difference if we focus on our part.

This is what I did many years ago and the fruit of it all is a happy and healthy marriage. My husband frequently tells me how wonderful I am and how lucky he is to have me for his wife. And the more he tells me this, the more I want to live up to this high expectation.

Anyway, perhaps we should leave off talking to men about men in marriage if it is offensive to them. This really isn’t what this blog is about. And I sure don’t like to offend a dear brother in Christ.

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.

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

LOL!

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

Mark,
You said:

Why have you said that Adam ‘was’ and continues to be…?
The text clearly saids that he has ‘become’ (hayah) like one of ‘us’.

Because it is in the perfect tense. Adam “is” like God and he always “was” like God because he was created in the image of God. His becoming like God didn’t just happen that day. It didn’t happen because of the event of eating the fruit. The reference is to the nature of man what he actually “is” now and who he “was” in the past because of the creation of God.

Mark,
You said:

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).

Sorry, that isn’t true. The serpent lied. Adam and Eve would not “become” like God. They already were like Him in His image.

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.

That may be true of false teachers but satan is not a “false teacher”. He is the father of lies and he has “no truth in him”. Therefore Jesus did not say that there is “half-truth” in him. There is “no truth” in Him. Nothing. Nada.

I believe that what the Serpent said was a half truth.

This is why you are deceived. You believed half of what the serpent said when it is all a lie.

They did become like God knowing good and evil, but not in the way that Eve expected- a ‘desire’ to become ‘wise’< ,/blockquote>

As I said before Adam already knew the difference between good and evil. He was not deceived. He did not become more like God when he ate the fruit. He became tainted and thus still in the image of God but actually less than God as he now experienced and lived out evil in the way that he dealt treacherously with God.

Mark, you will never come to know the truth until you realize that it is God’s word that is true an satan’s word that is fully a lie.

The irony is that rather than becoming ‘wise’ when they ate, they became ashamed of their nakedness.

Another of satan’s lies, eh?

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.

The problem is that until people understand that there is no truth in satan, many will continue to be deceived.

When I was first studying to witness to Jehovah’s Witnesses I came across a quote from the founder of the Watchtower. He stated that a truth told by satan is just as true as a truth told by God. He said that we need to accept truth wherever we find it. Now to many this sounded correct but it is not right. Jesus said that there is no truth in satan and so we do not accept anything that satan says as truth. Jesus said in John 18:

John 18:37 (NASB) Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”

Jesus said that He came to testify to the truth. If He then says that there is no truth in satan how can we believe Jesus and yet say that satan taught a half truth? Truth is a very important matter and this issue is a key. For if we do not have a measure for truth, we will fall for anything. Trust the Lord Jesus who testified about satan. My friend, there is no truth in satan.

” don’t think that the Bible commands that one initiates submission first for either gender. I think that is equal. But I do see a responsibility for men to sacrifice first and Jesus loved and sacrificed for his Bride.”

I cannot seperate the teaching for married men in this passage from verse 18 which teaches all to submit to one another in the Body. That is what being filled with the Spirit looks like.

The passages you mention are simply a way for the husband to submit to his wife. Culturally, this would have been seen as radical at the time and perhaps his societall position would make it necessary for him to model this first. AFter all, she was considered chattel in that society. Submitting, as it is understood in the Greek, was a step up for the wife. And verse 18 makes it equal for married believers in the Body. There is no way around that unless some, like Grudem, are willing to say vs 18 does not apply to some in the Body which only reads into the text.

Gengwell, come back! Did you see my explanation above?
.

Hi Cheryl

A couple more questions:

Firstly in 1 Timothy 1 v14-17 Paul goes on from saying he was deceived to describing himself as the worst of sinners. He also uses this to emphasize Christ. His deception dosn’t seem to exonerate him from his sins. How does this fit with Eve who was without Christ and also deceived. Is she not left as a sinner as much of a threat as Adam?

Secondly you have said several times that Satan can only speak lies. This understanding seems to require Jesus words that came thousands of years later. If this is fundamental to the passage as you suggest how were the Israelites to understand the passage in the interim?. To put it another way is there anything in this passage (or elsewhere in genesis) that demonstrates the serpent is completely lying to Eve?

Thanks

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.

Adam let the devil murder his wife.

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.

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

“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,”

Re Cheryl #129,

Even though the text does not explicitly state that Eve was not pregnant prior to the fall, the weight of evidence as you have shown would argue that she wasn’t.

I still cannot agree however, that increased pregnancies in the pre-flood world was an act of compassion on God’s part to preserve humanity.

If the record of scripture is inclusive that all pre-flood humans lived to great ages with no “die-off”, then it seems reasonable to me that the antediluvian humans were close to breeding themselves out of existence.

If I remove a crucial bolt or assembly from a perfectly running machine and it sets in motion a whole host of unintended and bad consequences, I did it to myself and God had nothing to do with it either in a compassionate sense, or from action as a vengeful deity.

Still Cheryl, I would hate like heck to have to face you in a court room as a prosecutor trying to convince a jury that a woman is in sin for teaching the Bible to men.

“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.”

gengwall,
I view Gen.3:16 in a different manner – that it is not only a marriage predictive, but predictive of human relationships. Because all human relationship began with Adam and Eve, but not all relationships are marital, I think it must include both.

Somewhat like you commented earlier on the physical power advantage of males, it appears to me the greater physical strength in males gave the first ones an initial power advantage in their rugged existence. Now with machinery to do most physical work and because intellect and education have virtually replaced that particular power advantage in our western culture the dynamics are slowly changing.

pinklight,
You said:

The serpent’s desire was to murder Eve – while Adam was with her

This is absolutely correct and it is the hallmark of satan’s schemes. If he cannot murder, he will steal and destroy.

gengwall,
I am so happy that you were just out “walking” for a time and planned to come back. I am certain that I am not the only one who would miss you 😉

You said:

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.

True enough but I don’t think that Paul was talking about their marriage relationship. I think he was talking about the first man who wasn’t deceived doing nothing about the first woman who was deceived. Deception was a serious problem in the garden just as it was a serious problem in Paul’s time.

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.

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.

Perhaps this would be a test of the second witness rule. 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? 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? It seems to me that as all of us are children of Adam and of his sin nature that we are all capable of having every bad character trait that there is – at least in theory.

It also seems to me that we should have more than one verse to build a solid doctrine on that foundation. I really don’t remember any other verses but perhaps they just never popped out at me. If anyone has verses that pertain to the fallen “norm” in marriage, I would be interested.

gengwall,
You also said:

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.

I don’t think that many of us women measure up to Eve who did not have Adam’s sin nature although most of us understand what it feels like to have a strong desire for marriage and male companionship at least at some point in our lives. However for a good many men they would have nothing to do with women if it were not for sex. To some of these men, women are less than perfect companions since most of us don’t grunt, belch or spit enough to make a good companion 😉

Greg Anderson,

Even though the text does not explicitly state that Eve was not pregnant prior to the fall, the weight of evidence as you have shown would argue that she wasn’t.

It would be difficult to work into the text a child who was born without a sin nature. Rather all of us were all kept together under sin and there are no “special” children who were perfect.

I still cannot agree however, that increased pregnancies in the pre-flood world was an act of compassion on God’s part to preserve humanity.

Well, if the woman was meant to conceive every hundred years there might have been problems without a change. For example once we were susceptible to death not long after 100, there would be not many offspring for the few who made it to 100. Do you know what I mean? I think that this is one area that I would like to as God about when I get to heaven. I would like to find out how long Adam and Eve stayed in the garden before sin entered the world and what conception would have been like had Eve not been deceived into sinning.

If the record of scripture is inclusive that all pre-flood humans lived to great ages with no “die-off”, then it seems reasonable to me that the antediluvian humans were close to breeding themselves out of existence.

We also don’t know how long a woman’s fertile period would have lasted during this time. One hundred years? I don’t think anyone has an inkling of the answer. Ah, yes, another question to ask God when we all get to heaven. 😉

Still Cheryl, I would hate like heck to have to face you in a court room as a prosecutor trying to convince a jury that a woman is in sin for teaching the Bible to men.

Thanks Greg! By the time I am done with this subject, I think I will have turned over every rock and searched out every crevice for clues to the truth. I have always wanted to do the very best job that I can do!

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.

gengwall,

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.

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

gengwall,

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.

The OT portrayed this “institution” in a neutral way just as slavery was portrayed in a neutral way. It doesn’t mean that God affirmed their actions.

One other thing that just came to mind. If Genesis 3:16 is talking about something that is not a sin about Eve and is something that all/most women share then Genesis 3:16 can be also taken as predictive of future women. The major problem comes when one see the future “act” as a sin – and it hasn’t even been committed when it was spoken! And lastly she doesn’t have Adam’s sin nature.

I understand that it might be offensive to think that God was predicting one sin that would be found in Adam and one tendency that would be found in all men, while at the same time predicting one action of Eve’s that is not sin, but may also be a tendency in all women. But it wouldn’t be the first time that there is this inequality in the genders. After all the blood line of Adam is counted as going through the male and Jesus could not have a human father because of the sin nature that would have come through the father. But the females while sinful themselves do not pass on Adam’s sin. Is this an inequality? Sure in some ways. It was the way that the Messiah was brought into the world. For the rest of us I don’t think that we will anytime soon need to think that we will have a sinless human born from us without the aid of a male father.

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?

It’s a sticky one for sure. But it is a road that one must travel down if they are going to charge Eve with outright rebellion with her eyes wide open.

gengwall,

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

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?

Here is a second witness:

Romans 5:19 (NASB)
19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Adam is included in the “many were made sinners” as he was the origin of the original sin. As a habitual sinner he continued in disobedience and God’s prediction that one of his sins would be taking a rule over his wife. We can find Adam referenced as a sinner in the OT and the NT.

On the contrary we never find Eve listed as a sinner (with inherited sin) nor find a judgment made against her. There is no comment about any “sin” that she did after the garden nor any doctrine that sin also comes through her now that she “continued” to sin.

It is a hurdle to cross for sure if one intends to charge Eve with sin. I would love to sit back and watch it done because maybe I could learn something from it. Or maybe not.

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.

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?

gengwall,

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?

I can tell that you are really thinking this one through. Good for you!

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?

Thoughts?

gengwall,

Then your false prophet argument holds for Eve as well as Adam.

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, but Eve? This seems to me to be the first failure of God’s to give a second witness to a persistent sin nature in a person who has not been charged with rebellion.

I should say that it would be a “first failure” for God to provide a second witness, if indeed Eve is a persistent sinner.

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?

gengwall,

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?

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.

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?

gengwall,

Do you view Eve’s “desire” as a virtue?

I believe that it is no less than neutral as it is not a sin. I do not believe that it is harmful to him.

“I believe that it is no less than neutral as it is not a sin. I do not believe that it is harmful to him.
”

Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

You do not see any cause and effect here? Her turning toward her husband instead of God causes the husband to rule over her. This is enabling sin. I think it does hurt Adam.

Lin,

While I do think that relying on our husbands instead of the Lord is not helpful to our husbands and this is because we are sinful human beings, is there a difference for Eve. One thing that hasn’t been brought out much (if at all) is that the connection in grammar is first of all to her giving birth to children in pain “yet” or “but” she will desire her husband. If the connection is first of all to the issue of pain and this connects to her desire, perhaps we have not looked at the full picture. If she desires him in spite of the pain that she will experience, could this be a good thing? It is worth thinking about to make sure that we haven’t missed anything that is there and inspired in the original text.

It is so good to be able to discuss these issues in an egalitarian environment.

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.

Cheryl, my concern is that I do not think ‘desire’ is a good translation for teshuqa. Although I do see why others would think that it is. I view her ‘turning toward her husband’ and “away from God’ as sin.

Lin,
I don’t have a problem with the translation “turning toward” her husband. However “turning away from God” I can’t find in the text. It isn’t that God says it is your husband or me. He is the one who gave her husband to her and she can have them both. She just can’t stay in the garden and be with her husband. Did God appear outside the garden? The Scripture shows us that He did to many people and Eve believed God for His promises by the words that she spoke so it doesn’t appear that she turned her back on Him. I am just not sure why people have to add a turning away from God in order to have her turn towards her husband. Thoughts?

“I am just not sure why people have to add a turning away from God in order to have her turn towards her husband. Thoughts?”

Wouldn’t that be the natural consquence of turning toward her husband for her needs… whether spiritual or emotional? She will, in effect, give up part of her personal intimacy with God.

I think we hang a lot on ‘yet’ when other translations render it ‘and’.

If Bushnell is right and the original said “a snare has increased your suffering”, then the YET would give me this impression: “Eve, though you were tricked into this and you did not rebel against me, you’re going to make the wrong choice, which will result in Adam ruling over you”. In other words, I see God saying that in spite of the fact that He was not throwing her out since she had been deceived, she would throw her personal intimacy with God away by turning toward her husband for those needs and he would, in return, rule over her.

The bottomline for me is that our relationship with our Creator/Savior is to be much more than our relationship with our spouse, even in a one flesh union. This is where I think comps make an idol of the husband.

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.

gengwall,

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.

The verse I quoted shows a sin nature – one that continues after the original act. While Adam started his sin nature in the garden, if it can be proven that he continues to sin (by his actions in the garden) and God predicts he has more sin to come and the fact that he gives us his sin nature by inheritance, then his sin nature is proven from the Scripture. The sin that came into the world is sin nature. If you want I can quote the Scriptures on this. Job shows that subsequent to the first act of sin, another sin was committed. The real issue of sin committed outside of the garden is whether Adam has a sin nature or not. It is impossible for Adam to give us a sin nature if he didn’t have one himself.

I think this is an argument of convenience. Seriously, is there anything “neutral” in God’s indictment from 3:14 on?

Yes. God has no “indictment” on Eve. There is nothing in God’s words that says “Because you did this…” The consequences that come on Eve (death) is because of God’s original command that they would die if they ate. In dealing with Eve, God deals with the consequences of her deception and the changes that will happen in her world, but it is not a further “indictment” as if she was a rebellious sinner.

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?

Yes. That is unless God is telling Eve that the serpent is going to hang around and deceive her into doing bad things to her husband. But from the context we can understand that Eve is no longer deceived and she is not about to believe the lies from a legless serpent.

The fact is that Eve goes through no condemnation from God. Her actions predicted in the future have no condemnation either. Adam’s actions do. Adam is the only one who is said to act treacherously toward God (Hosea 6:7).

How God deals with Eve is how God deals with us. By this I mean that there is no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. But there are still consequences of what we have done. Sometimes sin causes some of us to suffer a divorce, etc, even if these same ones no longer commit any willful acts of sin against their partner.

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.

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

That’s fine. The issue of whether it is a commendable thing or neutral (my own “desire” can be both commendable and something I need to work on because I must rely on God alone for my spiritual strength) may need to be left in the area of something that we just agree to disagree on. But if it is an issue of sin, that I would ask you to seriously consider whether it has been “proved” as a sin. If it isn’t a sin, what is it? The only other thing I can think of are “neutral” and “commendable”. If you are unwilling to consider her actions to be “commendable”, then you may find yourself in the “neutral” zone.

I am still laughing. “Blathering” eh? Hmmm… So cute!

Lin,
You said:

I think we hang a lot on ‘yet’ when other translations render it ‘and’.

Other translations render it ‘and’ and others ignore the word, but it is an important word that should not be ignored. The BDAG says of this word:

The use in Heb. shews that orig. (w) was not a merely copulative conj., but that it possessed a demonstrative force…is used very freely and widely in Heb., but also with much delicacy, to express relations and shades of meaning which Western languages would usually indicate by distinct particles…sometimes it introduces an idea which so exceeds or adds to what has preceded, that it is nearly equivalent to also
Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon

The same word that connects the pain in childbirth to her desire for her husband also connects her desire for her husband to his ruling over her. I think it is a serious mistake for comps to look at only the last connection but not to seriously consider that the first connection of the Hebrew (w) is from pain to desire.

Lin, you said:

If Bushnell is right and the original said “a snare has increased your suffering”, then the YET would give me this impression: “Eve, though you were tricked into this and you did not rebel against me, you’re going to make the wrong choice, which will result in Adam ruling over you”. In other words, I see God saying that in spite of the fact that He was not throwing her out since she had been deceived, she would throw her personal intimacy with God away by turning toward her husband for those needs and he would, in return, rule over her.

I don’t think that we can conclude this from the text. Did Eve indeed throw away her personal intimacy with God? The text says that she believed her child had been created with YHWH. Her faith seems to be strongly in the Lord God and any of us can know that we can be in this world and yet still have a personal intimacy with God.

Also God talks about the children that she would give birth to in pain. While she did not have to leave the garden to give birth to the Messiah, she did have to leave to give birth to children (plural). It apparently wasn’t a sin for her to leave and even though she had to make a decision between the garden and her husband she did not have to make a choice between God and her husband since God did not live in the garden nor was He restricted to revealing Himself there. But once she left she too was unable to get back to where she came from.

The bottomline for me is that our relationship with our Creator/Savior is to be much more than our relationship with our spouse, even in a one flesh union. This is where I think comps make an idol of the husband.

Lin, I absolutely agree with you on this bottom line. You are correct that comps make an idol of the husband and I would add that they make him an inter-mediator between his wife and God. He becomes the one who God must speak to, so that God’s will is only revealed through the proper ‘channel’ of the man. This is not scriptural at all.

It is a good time for me to say that I do not necessarily agree with other egalitarian sources. The reason is because I value truth more than a particular position. I do not hesitate to test egalitarian views the same as I test complementarian views. I believe that we should all want God’s truth no matter where it takes us.

When I read a view, I want to poke and prod and test that view to see if it really is consistent with the Bible. I know that this may make some people upset with me, but honestly I have far more of a fear of God than I do of man. I genuinely want to know what God has to say and what His truth is. I believe that His truth will stand up strongly to the test and I do not need to fear truth. If my view fails under the clear Word of God, then I need to abandon that view. If the view of a prominent egalitarian who I greatly respect fails to stand up under the clear Word of God, I will abandon that view too. If I am wrong for abandoning the view because I have failed to consider an important Biblical word or phrase or a corresponding text, then I stand to be corrected. But the bottom line for me is TRUTH.

Last night we started a study in our home called “The Truth Project”. The bottom line for this study is that Jesus came into the world to testify to the truth so truth is a non-negotiable and is highly important. While I disagree with the host of The Truth Project on the section on “roles” and it will be interesting for me to lead this study especially when it comes to that lesson, I can give my full support to the question of truth. If we are to be truth lovers and to fear God, we have to diligently want to know and to accept truth. I do not say this to mean that anyone here is not wanting truth. I am emphasizing this because I want people to know why I have no problem rejecting the egalitarian ‘line’ when it is evident to me that there is a conflict with the Scriptures.

“Lin, I absolutely agree with you on this bottom line. You are correct that comps make an idol of the husband and I would add that they make him an inter-mediator between his wife and God. He becomes the one who God must speak to, so that God’s will is only revealed through the proper ‘channel’ of the man. This is not scriptural at all.”

I agree with both of you on this point. Certainly there is nothing recorded in Genesis clearly saying that Adam was any sort of mediator between Eve and God. He is never shown acting “priestly.” In fact, the only things recorded about him are his death in Ch.5:3 and that he had sexual relations with his wife.
He’s not shown teaching “Biblical Manhood” to his sons Cain and Abel. The only thing I see clearly shown is his having sex with his wife. Other than that we only presume he was struggling with the ground by the sweat of his brow to eat grain because God said he would.

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

LOL

“It is a good time for me to say that I do not necessarily agree with other egalitarian sources. The reason is because I value truth more than a particular position. I do not hesitate to test egalitarian views the same as I test complementarian views. I believe that we should all want God’s truth no matter where it takes us. ”

Cheryl, I totally agree. I value truth as well.

For one thing, I am not seeing the word “yet” used twice in the Interlinear. The first conjunction indicates movement toward or with someone/thing (desire toward…), while the second indicates emphasis. The first is “and to” while the second is “and he”. So they may share a root, but they have different connotations.

Eve certainly did give up the closeness to God she and Adam had in the garden; how could it be otherwise?

That Eve later hoped her child would be the promised one in no way means she had EXACTLY the same closeness to God as before. She certainly had a different attitude toward her sin than Adam, but we can’t say more than that– especially when we’re claiming to not be reading into the text.

And she DID have to choose between staying in Eden and staying with Adam as only the one made from dust was driven out. I am not saying she had NO relationship with God outside of Eden, but that the relationship was changed.

I think the subsequent Patriarchy is proof of that change in relationship.

Lin,
Here are the two Hebrew interlinear references

and

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”.

Eve certainly did give up the closeness to God she and Adam had in the garden; how could it be otherwise?

It was God’s choice to walk with Adam and Eve in the garden. But in the sinful word outside the garden, He didn’t appear very much. Since God did still communicate with mankind, I don’t see how it can be a direct turning away from God from Eve’s vantage point since she believed that God was still with her as He promised to bring the Messiah through her seed.

I really hate to attribute “sin” to anything that is not clear that it is sin. Women have been told for centuries that using their gifts for men was sin. I just don’t want to attribute sin to Eve without a direct witness of the Scriptures or I would feel that I may be making a similar mistake as complementarians have with Christians. I am not trying to be difficult. I just see no clear “sin” and since God doesn’t list it, Paul doesn’t list her additional “sin” and no one including Eve lists it, I don’t feel qualified to see something in her heart that hasn’t been given to me from the text.

By the way the Logos system that breaks down the Hebrew phrases into their components has been extremely helpful to me. Not all the interlinears do that. That helps us to compare apples to apples and that is what the copied examples do to help us see that both words are the same.

I should call attention to the examples I copied. The top Hebrew word is the phrase (combination of words together). Underneath that phrase is the specific word translated as “yet” or “and” in each example. This is the level where we can compare the individual words.

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…

“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”.’

Cheryl, I am seeing two things from your comment. One is that you do not understand what I wrote about the about the words having the same ROOT and that you have to “break down each phrase into it’s component parts” to get the meaning you want. This is ignoring context and trying to make the words identical just because they share a root. Your own quotes of the interlinear prove this; they are identical because they are NOT of the WORDS but only the ROOTS.

Have to run but I will address the other item later

Lin,

In the Hebrew phrases are together that consist of many words. We don’t really have this in English except for things like “can’t”. The word can’t is actually a two word phrase which is made up of can and not. The word “can” and the word “not” are not changed just because they are contracted into one phrase/word.

In the same way in Hebrew f we are to compare the part of the phrase that is the conjunction we don’t compare that “part” with the “part” of another word that is a noun.

For example in Genesis 3:16 what is translated as “I will greatly multiply” comes out looking like one word but it is actually one phrase and it must be broken down into its parts so that we know what the grammar is of each of the words.

Another word phrase is “to the woman”. The definite “the” is part of what looks like one word but it’s meaning is not changed because it is part of the phrase.

In Genesis 3:16 God says to Eve I will greatly multiply “your pain” in childbirth. Then in Genesis 3:17 He says to Adam “in toil” you will eat from it. But the word “pain” and “toil” that is part of each phrase is exactly the same word. What God says to Eve about her toil is exactly what God says to Adam about his toil. Do we say that the words are now different because they are in a different phrase? We can’t. We can’t say that they are different because the phrase for the woman is “your toil” and for the man it is “in toil”. The context must include the words within the phrase and it is not different.

The same thing for the conjunction in the phrase that has “yet” and “and” (Genesis 3:16). The conjunction is exactly the same for both phrases therefore they can be compared. If we do not compare the conjunction in each phrase and distance the conjunction as if the items it joins have no relevance, then we are ignoring the context.

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”)?

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.

gengwall,
You asked:

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”)?

Because the words “yet” or “but” provide purpose for connecting these unrelated ideas. Many Bibles bring out this flavor by attaching “yet” or “but” after her desire, but there is only one who I have found so far that is consistent in thought in the rendering of the two instances of the conjunction “w”.

Genesis 3:16 (GNT)
16 And he said to the woman, “I will increase your trouble in pregnancy and your pain in giving birth. In spite of this, you will still have desire for your husband, yet you will be subject to him.”

The word “yet” is synonymous with “in spite of this” and I think that the GNT brings out all of the flavors in this passage that so many have missed.

I hope this answers your question.

gengwall,

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.

So what you are saying then is that we have a “nature” that possibly Adam did not? That he possibly only rebelled once and there was a possibility that he did not have a sin nature like ours?

His death is due to that original sin, and so is ours.

Yes, his death is due to the original sin, but remember he was kicked out not because of the original sin. He was kicked out because he had a propensity to do it again. If it was one sin and no more, and he had no sin nature that would have caused further rebellion, then he could have remained in the garden. God’s concern was for a future rebellion not just the past rebellion.

It is assumed based on his sin nature. You assume it, and so do I.

This is the key – he had a sin nature. It is the sin nature that makes it impossible to stop sinning without a complete heart change. Why would Adam be any different with his sin nature than we are? If he could just quit sinning with a sin nature and without a change of heart, it doesn’t seem like he or anyone would need a “new man” created within us. But the fact is that once you have a sin nature you are a slave to sin. It isn’t a question of “if” you will sin since the slave cannot help but being a slave.

BTW – Job had this inherited sin nature but scripture tells us he was a blameless man.

Job was a “blameless man” not because he had never sinned but because he trusted in God. Faith is accounted as righteousness.

Every scriptural reference to Adam and sin, in my view, is related to his original sin.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

First of all we know that Adam was a sinner. 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 just have never seen such a charge of sin so we can’t just assume her sin.

Finally, I simply can not fathom God’s prediction of Eve’s future behavior as being “neutral”.

I think it is a positive thing. But I can accept that it doesn’t have to be commendable. However it doesn’t fit the criteria of a sin.

I have to step out now so I can’t finish answering your comment. I will finish it later.

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?

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

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.

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.

“Job was a “blameless man” not because he had never sinned but because he trusted in God. Faith is accounted as righteousness.”

So, Adam’s sin was that he chose to quit having faith in God and was terminally unrepentant, therefore he had to be barred from the Tree of Life. But since Eve was deceived into unbelief, upon realizing what had happened, she repented and continued to live a life of faith accounted as righteousness. Is that what you are saying?

gengwall,
You said:

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.

It isn’t just that Scripture is silent on what happened after the garden as far as Eve and sin, but also that where we would expect God to condemn, He doesn’t. God doesn’t condemn Eve as if she has a rebellious sin nature and He doesn’t kick her out as if she is in rebellion and is a threat to eat from the tree of life. If there is no condemnation, no rebellion mentioned, no kicking out of the garden and no evidence of a rebellious nature in the future, then God is making a distinction between the man the woman in the past motives and the future actions.

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.

gengwall,
You said:

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.

I don’t think anyone here said that it was inconsequential. I surely didn’t say that. To say that it could be neutral doesn’t mean inconsequential. However, I have come to believe that it is a positive sign of Eve’s value for her husband that remains without sin of rebelling against him or setting herself against him.

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?

I can pass the ball to someone and it can be a neutral action. However since I do not believe that Eve’s action was “against” Adam, I have come to believe that it was a natural positive action of her being a wife that was not affected by any sin of rebellion. Could it also be neutral? I cannot rule it out and whether it was neutral or positive doesn’t make a big difference to me as long as the text never says it was sinful. That would be problematic for my view.

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 think we can use these words, if they are the clear view of God towards Eve. However since God makes no claim to be judging her and finding her guilty of rebellion, I think that it would be wise not to charge Eve with sin for which God never charges her.

gengwall,
You said:

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).

I have watched up to the point of the problem issue with “roles” and making Jesus have a different and subordinate “role” in the Trinity. I have already made it known that I have problems with these sections and I will certainly steer the talk around the knowing the truth about these issues that brings a conclusion out that is far different from the host. I am praying how I will handle these issues and while I will be gracious, I do not intend to let the lies that have seduced some be shown as “the truth”.

I didn’t find anything new or enlightening per se at this point in my Christian journey.

I loved it – at least the first few lessons and for one who emphasizes “truth” as the most important area of division between us and the lies of the enemy, it made me even stronger and gave me even more ammunition to preach the gospel of truth. I have appreciated that part.

It seems best directed at seekers and new believers.

It is actually directed towards mature Christians. In the material for leaders, they tell you that this is not material for unbelievers. New believers may benefit from it but it may be more meat than they can handle. We are encouraging one young man to come who has a lot of questions so I will see how this material effects him if/when he does decide to come.

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.

I think that is a good argument although I can’t promise you I will be there for now. I have a hard time keeping up with my own blog and I am up to my ears in writing my first book so I may not be around to help out. At least I can’t promise I will. I got a call from the book publishing company reminding me of my deadline so I can’t dillydally too much and still finish my book. I would be very happy to get that off my plate so that I am less pressured.

gengwall,
You said:

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?

The way I see it is that each succeeding interconnected thought is something unexpected so the word “yet” or “but” is the best fit. i.e. The woman will have great pain in giving birth to children yet even though we would not expect this, she will still desire her husband and even though she will desire her husband there is also something that happens that we wouldn’t expect. He will respond to her desire by taking authority over her by ruling her.

The pain leads to an unexpected desire which leads to an unexpected rule. All joined together by the conjunction “w” as “yet” or “but”. The results are unexpected but they occur anyway.

gengwal,
You said:

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.

I don’t think that we can say that the Bible seems “unconcerned with Adam’s sin nature, when Adam was kicked out of the garden because of his sinful possibilities. Also our own adamic nature is something that we are to die to which makes this nature (one just like Adam’s) as a major issue in the Scriptures.

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 believe that there are three reasons why we can understand that Adam has a sin nature:

1. He hid his sin.
2. He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life
3. He was prophesied to be the one who would practice sin through ruling his wife.

I consider all of these a valid witness to Adam’s sin nature.

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.

The language here is not about gaining knowledge that Adam did not have. The language is that mankind was created to know the difference between good and evil just as God knows it. Mankind was created with a conscience and a wisdom to understand knowledge. This passage is not talking about becoming like God at the fall.

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.

It wasn’t a sin before the fall but after the fall when God specifically said that they would die, they now must stay away from the tree of life so that they can die as God said would happen. At this point in time, eating from the tree of life in direct rebellion to the promise that they would die, would be 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.

I gave three witnesses above.

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.

See the three witnesses above.

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).

Sure. I believe that Eve’s sinful actions would be confirmed from the Scriptures, but I can also agree that if God said she would commit sin then this prophesy (or continued sin in Eve) would show a sin nature. Buy it would be up to you to prove that this was written as a sin that Eve would be committing. No one has come up with proof of this “sin” yet, but I am always willing to consider the evidence if it were to prove me wrong.

gengwall,
You said:

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.

First of all, let’s have a close look at the text:

Genesis 3:22–23 (Darby)
22 …And now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever…! 23 Therefore Jehovah Elohim sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken.

Notice that God doesn’t say that Adam was to till the ground in Eden. Adam was sent forth from the garden of Eden to till the ground. Now if the angel was only protecting the tree and not the entrance to the garden, then why was Adam sent out of the garden? There would be no reason to force him out if the tree was protected. Remember that God said that the reason he sent him out of the garden (verses 22, 23) was that he would not be able to eat from the tree of life. Therefore we can conclude that the angel guarded the way to the tree of life by guarding the entrance to the garden.

Well, she did get “stuck with him” if we understand that once she left the garden of Eden, that she couldn’t get back because the angel was guarding “the way”. In the Scriptures there is a symbolic “one way” only. Jesus is the one and only way back to the tree of life and the angel was guarding the “one way” to the tree of life.

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)!

Kay,
You said:

So, Adam’s sin was that he chose to quit having faith in God and was terminally unrepentant, therefore he had to be barred from the Tree of Life. But since Eve was deceived into unbelief, upon realizing what had happened, she repented and continued to live a life of faith accounted as righteousness. Is that what you are saying?

I would add the Adam ate when he was not deceived and he failed his duty as a watchman to protect the innocent. The rest is a good summary.

pinklight,

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!

Hey thanks! And I know you, that you also push the buttons if you think that the truth has been mishandled. Honestly, if I saw a problem with my argument, I would not keep my argument, but I don’t see any other way to view the text without causing internal problems and contradictions. So here I stand. 🙂

🙂

“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?

gengwall,

Cheryl – you must type (and think) at superhuman speeds.

Well I did type (if I remember right) 110ish-130ish words per minute when I was in grade 10. Now my brain types words automatically without any thought in my head. It’s not good since I end up typing something that I had not intended just because my fingers got used to typing certain words. And my laptop has slowed me down a lot since the keyboard is different than a regular keyboard. And the thinking? Not so much anymore. Age has crept in.

So, what will it be?

The issue of sin is a big one. I find myself defending the downtrodden especially since I stepped outside the box to understand that Eve did not distort what God had said like I had been made to understand.

I see it this way….would the proof of sin make it in a court of law? There has to be evidence for sin to call someone a liar or to call someone a person with a sin nature.

So if you would like to convince me that Eve had a sin nature, I would certainly weigh the evidence.

I am going to go back to my book this evening and then this weekend will likely put up another post (on Eve!). So if you want to carry on, on that post too, you are very welcome.

I love having people take me on who are respectful and kind. This makes dialog and debate to be helpful both to me and to everyone else who reads this post.

Oh and about the term “blathering”…. I am certain that you meant me and I am still chuckling. Are you sure it wasn’t meant for me? 😉 I am just SO glad that you didn’t end it with “idiot”!

By the way, my fingers typed “certainly” in the paragraph above and I had to correct it. If you come across any other words that I type (and didn’t correct) that seem out of place, blame it on my typing fingers. They are so fast I can’t keep up to them. The only problem with typing is that thinking slows me down. Sigh!

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.

gengwall,

1. I do not believe Eve had a sin nature. That doesn’t mean I believe she was incapable of sinning.

Wonderful to know that we agree that Eve did not have a sin nature. I also do not believe that she was “incapable” of sinning. She was capable and could make the choice just like she could when she was created. However because she had no sin nature, there had to be a reason why she would sin. She sinned in the beginning because she was deceived. If she sinned in regard to Adam, who was deceiving her to sin this time?

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.

How then would we know that it was a sin? What evidence would you bring? I honestly can’t see how someone can charge her with sin with the words that are written. How do you justify someone doing this?

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.

Was my Biblical evidence for Adam’s sin nature of no value? Do you believe that there is as much evidence for Eve’s sinning against her husband as there is for Adam’s sin nature? Is so, how do you stack the two together to come out with an equal case?

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.

Tee hee. I can’t answer this one since I don’t think that God has said anything that is “inconsequential” or anything that would be “blubbering” “drooling” or the like.

I just think that God meant what He said and said what He meant. It was judgment when He said it was a curse and prophecy when he predicted. But if prophecy is actually a judgment on Eve, then perhaps that could be considered a mistake a.k.a. “inconsequential blathering” since God is making us guess what He meant?

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”.

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.

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

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”?

“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.” ”

I agree. I cannot believe for one moment her desire/turning is either good or neutral. I believe Eve was deceived, admitted it and was remorseful. I also believe that one of the consequences to her being deceived was that she would turn toward Adam and in return he would rule over her. We can see the consequences to this with the sin of patriarchy right away.

Cheryl, Do you realize that her turning to/desire for her husband as a good thing would result in the fact that comps are right about roles/patriarchy. It kills the one flesh union concept. We see this very problem all throughout the OT with so much sin as in polygamy, etc.

Lin,

Cheryl, Do you realize that her turning to/desire for her husband as a good thing would result in the fact that comps are right about roles/patriarchy.

I don’t understand your thinking. Why? Comps believe that Eve’s “desire” is a bad desire to control her husband. What does believing that she was not trying to control him have to do with roles/patriarchy?

It kills the one flesh union concept.

This doesn’t make sense to me. How does having Eve as wanting to control her husband keeps a one flesh union, but having Eve desire to be with her husband kills the one flesh union?

It is ironic in many ways. Comps teach that now, in the NC, the husband’s ‘rule’ is good. (They describe it as leadership but it is really rule). They also describe her ‘desire’ in Genesis as usurping his authority which they say makes his rule a bad sort of rulership.

You describe her ‘desire’ as good and his rule as bad.

I say they are both bad. I have explained before I believe it is actually more like turning toward Adam and away from God. (Or her depending on Adam for needs that only God can meet)

If her desire/turning is good then it is the same as the desire/turning that comps NOW think a woman should have for her husband as in his being her leader or authority. That is her role…to turn toward her husband as the leader. They teach this as Christian virtue. This ‘desire’ or turning actually puts him in the role of prophet, priest and king.

Lin,
You said:

It is ironic in many ways. Comps teach that now, in the NC, the husband’s ‘rule’ is good. (They describe it as leadership but it is really rule). They also describe her ‘desire’ in Genesis as usurping his authority which they say makes his rule a bad sort of rulership.

This exactly what my next post will be on so I will wait to comment there in this area.

You describe her ‘desire’ as good and his rule as bad.

I say they are both bad. I have explained before I believe it is actually more like turning toward Adam and away from God. (Or her depending on Adam for needs that only God can meet)

This is where I believe it is very important to look at the text and to see where the connection between words develops the meaning. It appears to me that you are saying that her desire is spiritual so that she gets her spiritual needs met through Adam rather than God.

However when we look at the inspired words we see that the “desire” is connected to something physical not something spiritual. Look at it carefully.

“In pain you will bring forth children, yet….” This talking about the pain that she will experience but despite the pain she will do something unexpected…she will desire the man.

“In pain you will bring forth children, yet your desire will be for your husband…”

The conjunction word “w” is connecting something physical (pain) to something physical (desire for the one who has brought you into the pain). There is nothing in this passage that even hints that she is desiring him spiritually. It is a physical context, not spiritual.

The next part of the connection is also physical.

Yet your desire will be for your husband. And he will rule over you.

This connection goes from a physical desire (to be with the husband) to something unexpected, he will take his rule over her. He physically takes dominion over her just as he physically takes dominion over the animals.

If her desire/turning is good then it is the same as the desire/turning that comps NOW think a woman should have for her husband as in his being her leader or authority.

I disagree. Comps believe that her responsibility is to give up her independent life and to rely on her husband for all spiritual decisions. More about this one in the next post.

That is her role…to turn toward her husband as the leader. They teach this as Christian virtue. This ‘desire’ or turning actually puts him in the role of prophet, priest and king.

However there is nothing in the Genesis 3:16 passage about the wife following a leader. The issue is physical not about a spiritual leader.

What I believe is far different than what comps believe. I believe that her desire is not sinful but is an unexpected positive reaction after her pain. His will to rule her is not positive. It is a sign of his sin nature.

Now fast forward to today. Women today and not like Eve who did not have a sin nature. We not only have been convinced that a man is to be our spiritual leader and our spiritual inter-mediator between God and us but we naturally look to him for what we need to get from God alone. This is not good. We women are not like Eve, we are like Adam.

“Comps believe that her responsibility is to give up her independent life and to rely on her husband for all spiritual decisions.”

For the most part, that is exactly what happened after the fall throughout the OT except for a few wonderful examples that go against the ingrained patriarchal culture.

In any event, I cannot seperate the spiritual from anything else. Following him out of Eden had no spiritual componet for Eve?
Eve was also told to be fruitful and multiply BEFORE the fall.Now she has increased pain but she was also given some good news from God of bringing forth a child who would crush the serpent. She had motivation to endure the pain.

As gengwell said earlier, it takes two to tango. Eve wrongly turning toward Adam instead of God, gave Adam the power to rule over her in the first place.

Lin,

As gengwell said earlier, it takes two to tango. Eve wrongly turning toward Adam instead of God, gave Adam the power to rule over her in the first place.

So it is now Eve’s fault? If she didn’t give him the power to rule over her then it would not have happened?

I would also like to see the Scriptural proof where Eve turned away from God. Where is the Scriptural proof where God explains that it is Eve’s sin that will cause Adam to rule over her.

I am sorry, but I can’t buy that without Scriptural proof.

If she had stayed close to God how could Adam have ruled over her unless God commanded it? Did she have a choice to leave or not? I gather from your teaching she had a choice. Did she make a wise choice?

I just cannot seperate the physical from the spiritual.

If the desire was good then why bring it up after the fall? It would have been part of the good of creation and natural. God would have simply said: “He will now try to rule over you”. But Eve had to do something for that to happen the way it did. She had to turn toward/desire Adam more than her relationship with God.

Lin,
You asked:

If she had stayed close to God how could Adam have ruled over her unless God commanded it?

He could rule over her by force. This is the sad thing about patriarchy. It is a self appointed rule and it is a rule by the force of one person’s will over another.

Did she have a choice to leave or not? I gather from your teaching she had a choice.

Yes, Eve had a choice. She could have stayed in the garden and died there. The Messiah still could come through her without the need for a human male.

Did she make a wise choice?

Without her choice to leave none of us would be here. I believe that not only did God predict that she would leave (He prophesied that she would have pain in giving birth to children – plural), but he planned for all of the consequences that happened after the fall. God is able to work all things together for good for them that love Him.

As far as being a wise choice, she was in a one-flesh union with her husband. Even though he was now a committed sinner with a sin nature, she was still in love with him and his mate for life. She could have had a better life being alone in the garden without him, but perhaps that would have been the selfish choice. 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.

Lin, the questions that you are asking are excellent questions and should help to push us all back into the text.

I just cannot seperate the physical from the spiritual.

The physical is much easier to control and dominate than the spiritual. The reason is because our spirits can not be taken captive without our choice. We can pray to God and communicate with Him and no one can stop us because our spiritual intimacy with God is not something physical that can be controlled.

I do know that many men after Adam have forced a spiritual control on women by restricting the physical service that a woman gives. While they cannot force themselves as a mediator between her and her God, they can do a lot to hold her back. And some women have fallen for the teaching that all that God has for her must be passed on down through the man.

But the issue here is Eve not all sinful women. Eve walked with God in the garden and Adam could not control her intimacy with God. Her words about God giving her a son from Himself is there in the Scriptures without being held back by Adam. While God predicted the truth about Eve’s life with Adam and that he would rule over her, there is no indication that Adam took away her intimacy with God. The same cannot always be said of the human sons and daughters of Adam.

If the desire was good then why bring it up after the fall?

Another great question! The answer is in the text. She would experience great pain in giving birth yet God predicts the unexpected – that she would desire him in spite of the pain. While desire is to be taken for granted in he original creation account where both were without sin and both were in unity together, it is not to be taken for granted after Adam became a committed sinner. Here is where her desire is important to know and understand and where his rule over her is also unexpected.

It would have been part of the good of creation and natural. God would have simply said: “He will now try to rule over you”.

The problem is that Adam did not “try” to rule over her but it was prophesied that he would take dominion over her. If he ruled over her merely by her own consent, then any consequence would have been her own fault. But the text does not show her consent. The text shows a connection done with a “but” or “yet” result. He has no reason to rule over her. God did not give him this rule and Eve did not give her rule away to him. Adam continued his life of sin by taking something for himself that did not belong to him. More on that shortly in the next post.

But Eve had to do something for that to happen the way it did. She had to turn toward/desire Adam more than her relationship with God.

This is a faulty conclusion. It is the way that we have been trained to think as if it is always her fault. No, it is not her fault. Adam did this sin on his own. Adam in his sinful male ability to overpower and dominate, chose to do so over her.

If we look at Israel in the OT, we will see that there were times when God gave them over to their enemies. Even those who did not sin with Israel had a consequence of being given over and ruled by the enemies, although God kept them safe throughout their trial. There are times when the innocent ones will have to suffer alongside the guilty. It is a result of the fallen state of humanity and this world.

I really appreciate the way that you have thought through these questions. It shows to me that you are thinking and reasoning and trying hard to work this all out with the Scriptures. This is so commendable!

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

Lin, #250-that is very helpful! Thanks!

Lin,
Your quote says:

Before Cain could have been born (Genesis 4:1) either Adam must have repented and become again the child of God, or Eve must have turned from God and followed Adam out of Eden. The fact that Cain was a murderer certainly argues that Eve followed Adam.

I do not agree with this at all. It is once again blaming the woman for what others did. I think that it is unhelpful to state that the woman turned her back on God when she left with her husband as if she couldn’t have both her God and her husband. The text doesn’t say this and if we add to the Scriptures we can have serious problems with what we believe.

Then there is this quote:

123. Eve was, then, the first woman to forsake her (heavenly) kindred for her husband. She reversed God’s marriage law,—”Therefore shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife.” Had Eve remained steadfast with God, Adam might through the double influence of God and Eve, have returned to God.

Not only is this again putting the blame for Adam’s continued sinning onto Eve, but the text never says that Eve did not remain steadfast with God when her eyes were opened to the truth. I may respect Bushnell a lot for her work, but these statements have no basis in the text.

This is also not true:

124. God spoke warningly to Eve at this time, telling her that she was inclining to turn away from Himself to her husband, and telling her that if she did so her husband would rule over her.

God did not warn Eve that she should not leave the garden because it would be a turning away from Him. He warned her about what life would be like with her one-flesh husband. Was God actually telling her that she had to stay in the garden and keep away from her one-flesh union? Was he telling her that she was no longer to fill the earth? Or was He merely warning her of life outside the garden when she kept her one-flesh union with her husband? I believe that the latter is the truth and I see no other words in the text that would add an either/or warning from God. Where is this extra warning in the text if it truly is there?

In fact there is no variety in the three sentences, excepting in the proper nouns implied in the pronouns used. The sense of the three passages must be similar.

If what Eve did is sinful, (her desire or turning) then by implication all the three passages must have sin as a result. This would make the passage about Christ’s desire to be sinful too. It just doesn’t fit.

If this be a commandment of God, and man must rule woman, the more carnally-minded a man is the better he keeps that sort of “law!” But the Apostle Paul says: “The carnal mind . . . is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7). Thus we see that the context does not prove that this “shall be” of the sentence translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” is imperative. We can assert positively that this sentence is a simple future or present, warning woman of the consequences of her action.

This I can agree with, however just because she will desire her husband does not mean that the desire is automatically a sinful thing. It is not a warning by God not to desire him. It is warning her about what will befall her with her one-flesh union will be like with a sinful natured husband.

But Jesus Christ said, as much of women as of men: “NO ONE can serve two masters.”

This is true, but it is not recorded in the Scripture that Eve set herself out to serve Adam as her master.

In my opinion Bushnell fails in this part of her teaching because she assumes a sin on the woman’s part by her leaving God as if He is restricted to the garden. The text gives not even one word towards Eve turning her back on God as none of the Hebrew words says this. If we want to make Eve a habitual sinner, we are in danger of having no human parent that the Messiah could come through and have no inherited sin nature. There is reason why Jesus could not have a human father. If we make Eve out to be a rebellious sinner like Adam, then how could God justify restricting the male from being a human father?

Let’s think these things through carefully.

Cheryl, I believe we tend toward error when we do not translate Teshuqa properly. I think desire is a very bad translation that leads us into error. It is interesting to note that the word ‘desire’ was first introduced in a translation in the 1300’s. It is what led many to view it as only sexual. Some say that is good for propagation and some say it is Jezebel like control.

I do not think Eve is the heroine that you seem to think she is. I believe she was deceived and remorseful. I also think that when one “turns” toward something they also turn AWAY from something else.

I still find it odd that God tells Eve AFTER the fall she will turn toward Adam and you find that a good thing. I think it was a horrible thing with dire consequences. You have been teaching it is a good thing and the way to propagate the earth. This sounds Mormonish to me for some reason. This does not just blame Eve but again, I ask, how could Adam rule over her, even physically with God’s protection? Are you claiming that God withdrew any protection from her and she had no choice even after her choice to leave the Garden?

You say my interpretation reads into the text. I believe yours does too. I fear you are seriously watering down the absolute horrors of the fall. Sin has serious consequences whether one is deceived or sins willfully. The “consequences” are dire.

The bottomline for me is that Eve turned to Adam and away from God. This is based on the historical interpretation of Teshuqa. Many women in the comp world could take a lesson from this when they view their husbands as their spiritual leader instead of Jesus Christ.

“If we want to make Eve a habitual sinner, we are in danger of having no human parent that the Messiah could come through and have no inherited sin nature.”

But Mary had a human sin nature because she was born of both father and mother, if we take that view.

Mary was chosen…why? Because she found favor with God. We are never told it was because she did not carry an inherited sin gene. Where are we told this about women, anyway?

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.

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?

I made a long response to Lin, but then somehow I got off the page and lost everything. Arghhhh!!! Oh well, will recreate as I have time.

gengwall,

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

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.

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. Christianity seems to help men a lot to set aside that sinful desire. Although hierarchists seem to hold on tight to what they believe is their right. There is no confession of sin in that area and turning away from it.

If you also believe that Adam’s rule over Eve was sinful it seems like we are still on the same page even though we may disagree on Eve.

gengwall,

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?

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. This doesn’t seem to leave the woman even when she has a 90 year old guy.

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,

I will answer your questions on #255 first as my answer is shorter.

But Mary had a human sin nature because she was born of both father and mother, if we take that view.

Absolutely, yes. But even though she was a sinner, the Messiah could come through her because of Eve, without sin.

Mary was chosen…why? Because she found favor with God. We are never told it was because she did not carry an inherited sin gene. Where are we told this about women, anyway?

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.

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?

“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”

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

Basically, you are saying that God means: Eve you were turning to your husband before sin in the one flesh union and that was good and now you are going to do the same thing and it is still good.. Except for now, he is going to rule over you when you turn toward him.
Is that what you mean? (So how could her turning be good if this is what it means?)

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.

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.

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?

Lin #254,

Cheryl, I believe we tend toward error when we do not translate Teshuqa properly. I think desire is a very bad translation that leads us into error.

I think it is more of a bad understanding of the word and because of this hierarchists have found another way to denigrate the woman by making her a temptress and a snare to the man. But I think that we need to be careful that we don’t head off in the opposite direction so much that we make another bad addition to the word. 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.

When God brought Eve to Adam they were to meld together and he was specifically to turn towards her just as all husbands are to leave and cleave. But his turning toward her in marriage was not a turning against God. It is never an either/or situation where she can have her husband or God. Or he can have his wife or God. God always meant for them to have each other and Him.

I do not think Eve is the heroine that you seem to think she is. I believe she was deceived and remorseful.

Actually I don’t think that I ever said that Eve is the heroine. In fact it is her seed that is the ultimate victor and that is by God’s mercy. I too believe that Eve was deceived and remorseful.

I also think that when one “turns” toward something they also turn AWAY from something else.

Nope, that is not a given. To turn away from God is something that we should not read into the text because to add such a thing would be to charge Eve with additional sin. This additional sin is never put onto her account by Jesus or any of the other NT apostles let alone any of the OT prophets even though Adam is talked about in his sin in the OT.

I still find it odd that God tells Eve AFTER the fall she will turn toward Adam and you find that a good thing.

When they were both in the garden, God didn’t need to say anything. It is only when Adam has been thrown out that the issue of them being together is under discussion. Whether it is a good thing or not deals directly with whether she has a sin nature or not. If she doesn’t then there is no reason to believe that it is a sinful thing unless God says so.

I think it was a horrible thing with dire consequences.

The dire consequences comes from the man and his sin nature and not from the woman. The hierarchical view is that the Eve is to blame. God doesn’t apparently agree with this as He gives no rebuke to Eve about any additional sin.

You have been teaching it is a good thing and the way to propagate the earth. This sounds Mormonish to me for some reason.

LOL!! It isn’t like Mormonism at all. The fact is that if Eve is to have more than one child, she needs to leave the garden and be with her husband. God did not initiate a divorce between the two of them and His will was originally for them to be together and populate the earth. I don’t see where He changed that at all and although she had permission to stay, her loyalty to Adam would have been a good reason to leave.

Mormonism is about people becoming gods and living on their own planet having spirit children who worship them as gods. Not even close to having Eve leave her wonderful garden home to be with her sinful but still her one-flesh husband.

This does not just blame Eve but again, I ask, how could Adam rule over her, even physically with God’s protection? Are you claiming that God withdrew any protection from her and she had no choice even after her choice to leave the Garden?

This deals with the issue of evil. God does not necessarily step in and remove people from doing evil and sometimes the innocent suffer. The question of course is why does God allow evil? God has given us all free will and some use that free will for evil. But God has promised that all things will work together for good to them that love God and are called for His purpose. Eve is still in God’s hands even though her husband will do evil things against her.

You say my interpretation reads into the text. I believe yours does too. I fear you are seriously watering down the absolute horrors of the fall.

The horrors of the fall come directly through Adam and the serpent, not through Eve. There is nothing that I am watering down regarding the one who brought sin into the world. The fact is that Eve did not bring sin into the world and any teaching that teaches this would be adding to God’s word.

Sin has serious consequences whether one is deceived or sins willfully. The “consequences” are dire.

Yes there are still consequences whether one has been deceived or sins willfully, but God deals with each case differently. Eve has nothing cursed on her behalf but she still suffers for falling into sin. We cannot and should not diminish that. However to say that she continues to sin with a sin nature isn’t part of the “serious consequences” of her deception.

The bottomline for me is that Eve turned to Adam and away from God. This is based on the historical interpretation of Teshuqa.

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.

I challenge anyone to show a historical interpretation that Teshuga must mean turning away from. I have never seen it and I do not believe it exists. Bushnell’s chart does not show such an interpretation.

Many women in the comp world could take a lesson from this when they view their husbands as their spiritual leader instead of Jesus Christ.

Our sin is from our father Adam. Many Christian women must be taught not to view their husbands as their spiritual leader. But this error does not come from Eve but from the hierarchists who have tried unsuccessfully to import it into the text.

gengwall,

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

Okay. I was just concerned with the length of the comments and that some people’s browsers may take too long to load them. If that’s not an issue, then we can carry on here.

“I do not agree with this at all. It is once again blaming the woman for what others did. I think that it is unhelpful to state that the woman turned her back on God when she left with her husband as if she couldn’t have both her God and her husband. The text doesn’t say this and if we add to the Scriptures we can have serious problems with what we believe.”

Cheryl, Lets look at the facts:
-Eve DID follow Adam out of the Garden. That is a fact.
-Her first child was a murderer, that is also a fact.
-Only a few generations (long) generations later, the world had to be flooded because of terrible wickedness

Yet, what would have happened if Eve had not turned to Adam and stayed in the Garden? (After all, Adam was willfully wicked)

To deny that Eve shares blame in the outcome of her choices is to deny the facts in the Word.

We rightly emphasize that those who teach women are to enable husbands by treating them as gods ARE chief sinners, but women who listen to such teaching are sinning too. Yes they are deceived in many cases, and we make egal known so they can open their eyes. But many are not; they know about us but hate us and call us names. They are in sin, oppressed or not, because idolatry is sin!

“God did not warn Eve that she should not leave the garden because it would be a turning away from Him. He warned her about what life would be like with her one-flesh husband”

Turning requires both ‘toward’ and ‘away’, it is impossible to turn toward Adam without turning away from God. Eve surely regretted it later, but if you want to argue from silence, then you must allow it for others too.

Bushnell: In fact there is no variety in the three sentences, excepting in the proper nouns implied in the pronouns used. The sense of the three passages must be similar.”

You responded: If what Eve did is sinful, (her desire or turning) then by implication all the three passages must have sin as a result. This would make the passage about Christ’s desire to be sinful too. It just doesn’t fit.”

That is a strawman answer, Cheryl! Bushnell never said that desire/turning was sinful in itself, but only derives its meaning (good or bad) from the context. You know that context gives the meaning!

Whether one calls this case sinful or only a bad choice, it had terrible consequences that you cannot deny. And the Song of Sol. reference is not at all about Christ, unless one wishes to highly allegorize the whole book, as many do. But the immediate and non-allegorical view does not see Christ even inferred, but only the ‘desire’ of a wife for her husband. That particular context is certainly about sensual desire, while Cain/Sin’s is about hatred, and Eve’s is about not wanting to be separated from her husband who was being driven out of the garden. All three are ‘desire’ or ‘turning’; that is Bushnell’s point. It is NOT that all must be positive or negative! And the major point of Bushnell and all egals is that this is NOT about lust or usurping authority, and that God did not command it but only predict it.

“n my opinion Bushnell fails in this part of her teaching because she assumes a sin on the woman’s part by her leaving God as if He is restricted to the garden.”

No, she assumes nothing like God being restricted to the garden; that is preposterous. That Eve turned from close, face-to-face, RECONCILED communion with God cannot be denied, for to leave with Adam was to reject that she herself would bear the Messiah. I thought I made it clear that I do not believe God was restricted to the Garden, especially when we remember that God Himself gave the reason for Adam’s expulsion: to keep away from the Tree of Life. But who can deny that people after Adam and Eve had a more distant relationship to God than had been the case inside the garden?

gengwall,

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.

That is right and the reason is because we sinful women also get our sin nature from Adam. Men take after Adam in a way that corresponds to their tendency to sin and women take after Adam in a way that corresponds to their own tendency to sin. None of us takes after Eve. Only the one seed of Eve is without sin and we cannot import sin to Eve when the Bible specifically says that it comes through Adam.

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?

It isn’t that it has nothing at all to do with marriage, but all other marriages are two sinners molded into one. Eve’s marriage was not that way. It was one sinner molded onto one without a sin nature. That is unique and has never been replicated since.

Make sense?

Lin,
You said:

Cheryl, Lets look at the facts:
-Eve DID follow Adam out of the Garden. That is a fact.
-Her first child was a murderer, that is also a fact.
-Only a few generations (long) generations later, the world had to be flooded because of terrible wickedness

Is the fact that Eve’s first child was a murderer her fault or was it the fault of her husband who passed his sin nature onto his son?

The continued state of affairs of mankind is stated in Scripture as our “old man” which came into the world through Adam. I really do not understand how you blame Eve for this.

Yet, what would have happened if Eve had not turned to Adam and stayed in the Garden? (After all, Adam was willfully wicked)

If Eve had not turned to Adam and had stayed in Eden, then the Messiah would have come through her and we would not exist. But was it a sin for her to leave and is it her blame that she kept her marriage vows and kept that one-flesh union even if he was a sinner? God never took back his command to fill the earth so why should she be to blame? If Eve was to blame then God was also be to blame for not killing Adam and creating a new husband for her to fulfill her part of filling the earth.

To deny that Eve shares blame in the outcome of her choices is to deny the facts in the Word.

The problem with this reasoning is that her choices were not sinful. It is like saying today that although we know for sure that our future children will have a sin nature, that we are sinful and to blame for producing these children. It just doesn’t follow through. Adam is the only one that the Bible blames for the condition of this world. Jesus is not to blame. Eve is not to blame.

But many are not; they know about us but hate us and call us names. They are in sin, oppressed or not, because idolatry is sin!

Yes! I couldn’t agree with you more! Women today are responsible for learning and understanding for themselves. They cannot give their mind over to their husbands and be blameless. The Bible is there so that they will not be deceived.

Turning requires both ‘toward’ and ‘away’, it is impossible to turn toward Adam without turning away from God. Eve surely regretted it later, but if you want to argue from silence, then you must allow it for others too.

This simply does not fit. God is not a “thing” that can be turned from without sin. God is omnipresent and turning toward your husband in leaving the garden cannot turn from a God who is everywhere. I am not arguing from silence since God Himself did not charge her with additional sin and the Scripture is clear that sin came into the world through one man alone. How do you explain a sinful Eve yet her sin has no effect on her offspring? How do you explain how sin came through only ONE man and not through one man and one woman?

That is a strawman answer, Cheryl! Bushnell never said that desire/turning was sinful in itself, but only derives its meaning (good or bad) from the context. You know that context gives the meaning!

This isn’t a strawman answer at all. You quoted her as saying that “the sense of the passage must be the same”. If the sense must be the same, then the sinfulness must be the same as that is the sense is it not?

Like I said, I respect Bushnell a lot and I understand what she was up against. However I do not agree with adding to the meaning of a word. What is the turning away from in the other passages if turning away from is always the sense? When sin wants to control Cain, what is sin turning away from?? Do you see how this doesn’t make sense in any other passage? That is because the addition of turning away is not in the meaning of the word. I agree that it could mean this if the context allowed for it and there is additional words that stated that. But there is no additional words that create a turning away from God. He is not mentioned in the passage at all or that she would be leaving Him. It is because that is not the context. God doesn’t dwell in the garden.

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?

“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.”

Bushnell did. The ‘turning’ means back and forth. Away and toward. It is simple logic to know that turning means you turn away from something toward something. The sense of shuq is running back and forth.

“The hierarchical view is that the Eve is to blame. God doesn’t apparently agree with this as He gives no rebuke to Eve about any additional sin.”

I am not soley blaming Eve. I think that is where you miss it. To you it is either/or. Eve=all good. Adam=all bad. Eve was deceived and made a poor choice leaving the Garden.

I think God was WARNING Eve and I think she made a bad choice with DIRE consequences. I also believe Adam sinned willfully with his eyes wide open. You are teaching she made a good choice to turn toward Adam and this did not affect her relationship with God. I differ. Their first child was a murderer.

I do not believe in a female sinless gene line. Being deceived is a sin that is treated differently with mercy and grace once shown the truth and admitted, I agree with that. But it is still sin with DIRE consequences. Adam was worse. God warned her but she still looked to Adam.

“Is the fact that Eve’s first child was a murderer her fault or was it the fault of her husband who passed his sin nature onto his son?

The continued state of affairs of mankind is stated in Scripture as our “old man” which came into the world through Adam. I really do not understand how you blame Eve for this.
”

Cheryl, I am NOT soley blaming Eve! It takes two to make a murderer. The only way he was born was for her to follow Adam! The bad choice. Are you claiming Adam dragged her out of the garden against her will?

I have to run out now…

“This isn’t a strawman answer at all. You quoted her as saying that “the sense of the passage must be the same”. If the sense must be the same, then the sinfulness must be the same as that is the sense is it not?”

The sense was the “turning”, Cheryl, since most translate it as desire which can take us down the wrong road completely.

The context tells us whether it is good or bad turning.

To carry on…

Whether one calls this case sinful or only a bad choice, it had terrible consequences that you cannot deny

I honestly do not see Eve as leaving the garden as a bad choice. In fact I am glad that she did because if she had not left, I would not be here. I praise God that I have been given the opportunity to exist and to live to serve and love God! The consequences for Eve leaving the garden has been extremely positive for me. How about you?

And the Song of Sol. reference is not at all about Christ, unless one wishes to highly allegorize the whole book, as many do. But the immediate and non-allegorical view does not see Christ even inferred, but only the ‘desire’ of a wife for her husband.

Seems to me that Bushnell saw the Song of Solomon as about Christ. But whether it does or doesn’t image Christ, the desire there is not a bad thing.

That particular context is certainly about sensual desire, while Cain/Sin’s is about hatred, and Eve’s is about not wanting to be separated from her husband who was being driven out of the garden.

Marriage is more than a sensual desire on the woman’s part and the woman is not an antagonist as sin is. There is no comparison. Eve not wanting to be separated from her one-flesh spouse is a normal and natural result of marriage. She was his soul mate.

All three are ‘desire’ or ‘turning’; that is Bushnell’s point. It is NOT that all must be positive or negative!

That isn’t the understanding that I got as she said they had the same sense. And if there is a same sense in each case then why is there no turning away from in the other cases? The fact is that the turning of Eve toward her husband is not required to be negative.

And the major point of Bushnell and all egals is that this is NOT about lust or usurping authority, and that God did not command it but only predict it.

I agree!! Yeah! It is not something that was sinful for Eve nor was it lustful (another act of sin) or usurping Adam’s authority or any other charge of sin. It was allowed for Eve for her to be with her husband and to complete her command to fill the earth. The only way that this would not be allowed would have been if God had forbade it and broken their marriage. I don’t think He did that.

No, she assumes nothing like God being restricted to the garden; that is preposterous. That Eve turned from close, face-to-face, RECONCILED communion with God cannot be denied, for to leave with Adam was to reject that she herself would bear the Messiah.

Who says that Eve had no reconciled communion with God outside the garden? And the fact that she believed her first child was one who was created with YHWH shows that she did not believe that she had rejected God’s promise that her seed would be the Messiah. She still believed God and acted on that belief.

I thought I made it clear that I do not believe God was restricted to the Garden, especially when we remember that God Himself gave the reason for Adam’s expulsion: to keep away from the Tree of Life. But who can deny that people after Adam and Eve had a more distant relationship to God than had been the case inside the garden?

I agree again! But God no physically walking with us on this earth has nothing to do us having a more distant relationship. Moses had that close face-to-face relationship with God even outside the garden. The Bible doesn’t talk about Eve’s relationship with God and how His walking with her in the garden was replaced outside the garden. However we can’t assume that Eve had turned her back on this relationship with God. If the Scripture said this I would believe it with all my heart. But the Scripture makes it clear that Eve received mercy from God and He had no condemnation for her except the original promise that if she ate of the fruit she would die.

These discussions are very helpful, I believe to many who read and weigh in on the inspired text. What is written there and what is not? We need to continue to test all things by God’s word and accept what it says. There is no doubt that many complementarians will read these comments. I hope that they can see that the heart of the egal is to know what the Scripture says and not to accept tradition. We want to know truth. Our purpose is no to accept a person’s word just because they have egal leanings and I don’t ask anyone to just accept my word. Read and study and show yourself approved by knowing for yourself. This is my challenge to complementarians who are reading this and getting a new view of who and what egalitarians are.

gengwall,

Cheryl – “Make sense?”

No.

LOL! You are a tough cookie, gengwall, but we love you all the same!

Looks like there are lots more for me to answer while I was working on answering older questions. I will have to leave it for the time being and get back to my normal work.

Carry on and keep thinking this one through. I’ll be back.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

“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?”

I am not sure how I can help what it sounds like. I never once said Eve sinned out of rebellion. She was deceived. We are talking about her actions after the warning from God when she followed Adam out of the Garden.

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

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.

How can you believe that her turning is not a consequence of the fall? Her turning toward Adam produced Cain, for one thing. And how can Adam rule over her without her consent? The text says nothing about him dragging her out of the garden against her will.

You guys are starting to make Eve sound like the comp Eve, a ditzy woman, always easily deceived, who acted like a doormat and had no choices and made loyalty to Adam more important than God.

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.

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?

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.

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:
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.

To deny that Eve shares blame in the outcome of her choices is to deny the facts in the Word.

You mean she shares blame in populating the earth with Adam’s rebellious offspring? She’s at fault for not sinning against her husband by seperating from him? She’s at fault for desiring him? If she didn’t pass anything on to the race then how could she be to blame? It’s ALL Adam’s fault for the fallen race and none of the blame can be placed on Eve’s shoulders – not textually.

We rightly emphasize that those who teach women are to enable husbands by treating them as gods ARE chief sinners, but women who listen to such teaching are sinning too. Yes they are deceived in many cases, and we make egal known so they can open their eyes. But many are not; they know about us but hate us and call us names. They are in sin, oppressed or not, because idolatry is sin!

Lin,
I agree!

Turning requires both ‘toward’ and ‘away’, it is impossible to turn toward Adam without turning away from God. Eve surely regretted it later, but if you want to argue from silence, then you must allow it for others too.

If anything (as in turning away) Eve would be turning away from her increased pain, NOT God! That would be the context.

…Bushnell never said that desire/turning was sinful in itself, but only derives its meaning (good or bad) from the context. You know that context gives the meaning!

The context is void of her having a sin nature even though it’s the “fall” and there’s nothing to show that her desire was sinful.

The problem with this reasoning is that her choices were not sinful. It is like saying today that although we know for sure that our future children will have a sin nature, that we are sinful and to blame for producing these children.

There’s the reasoning I was “looking” for!

gengwall,
You 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.

It isn’t that I think that Genesis 3:16 has nothing to say about wives. However I believe that it is inaccurate to take post-fall weaknesses of women and put these weakness back onto Eve.

Are we going to find the truth about Eve by looking in the box? Is Eve exactly like us?

The truth claim of many complementarians is that Eve is exactly like all of us and because of this they have put her into our box and come up with things like:
1. Eve sinned by adding to God’s word
2. Eve tried to seduce Adam
3. Eve deceived Adam
4. Eve’s desire was to control Adam and take him captive to her own will.

I do not think that we will understand Eve and God’s description of humanity’s first woman to judge her by placing her in our box.

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?

If Eve bonded to her husband and her desire to be with him was a natural desire of all women, then what Eve did can be like what all women should naturally have.

A neutral or good thing can be the same from the first woman to all women, but is it possible for the first woman’s sin to be passed on to all women? If her sin was rebellion, then she too had a sin nature. If her sin was not rebellion, then who deceived her?

If what she had was not rebellion and was not sin, is it possible that what is passed down to all women could become sin in us? Sure. We, after all, are in the box!

Lin,
You asked:

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

Excellent question!

First of all we need to remember that when God spoke the words in Genesis 3:16 Adam had not yet been kicked out of the garden. So the application of this verse was in the future. It gave the foundation for why a woman with choices would choose what seemed like a bad choice for her own good. And Eve was not to think that just because she treated Adam in a respectful and loving way that she would receive the same treatment back. No matter what Eve did, she was going to get mistreatment back from Adam because he was living a life of the rebellious sinner.

Now the next question is whether God can warn her about negative things in her future yet still allow her (or perhaps want her) to go through with the bonding with her husband that will bring about the those negative things?

Here is a case in point. Paul was on his way to Jerusalem and in every city along the way, people were prophesying to Paul that bonds and afflictions were waiting for him.

Acts 20:22–24 (NASB)
22 “And now, behold, bound by the Spirit, I am on my way to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there,
23 except that the Holy Spirit solemnly testifies to me in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions await me.
24 “But I do not consider my life of any account as dear to myself, so that I may finish my course and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify solemnly of the gospel of the grace of God.

So was Paul wrong in continuing to go to Jerusalem to give his life as a testimony to the gospel? Were the warnings given to stop him from going or were they given to prepare him so that he was not unprepared for the hardships that would await him?

I believe that Paul was in the center of God’s will and he would die a martyr’s death that would start from his arrest in Jerusalem.

In a similar way Eve was warned about what would await her outside the garden in her marriage with Adam, but the warnings were not given to command her to stay in the garden. They were given to prepare her so that she was not blindsided by the hardships that she would face.

Lin,
You said:
I never once said Eve sinned out of rebellion. She was deceived. We are talking about her actions after the warning from God when she followed Adam out of the Garden.

Okay so Eve was not a rebellious sinner and she was not one who had the sin nature of Adam. One must look at the text then and decide. Was God commanding Eve not to leave the garden? Was God giving the predictions of the evil that would happen if she did the evil first (as if leaving the garden was a sin)? In other words was God saying that He will bring this evil on her if she sins and leaves the garden? Or did God give her the choice?

Is there anything in the Scriptures where God may have given Eve an ultimatum i.e. choose you this day – Adam or me?

Hi Cheryl

I have a question following on from way back at post #178.

You say that the knowledge of good and evil is part of being created in the image of God and was not a result of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In Gen 2 v17 God Himself refers to the forbidden tree as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. Does this name not indicate the nature of the fruit of the tree in the same way the name of the tree of life describes a tree which if eaten from Adam would live forever (Gen 3:22)?

I know I am jumping back a long way but it seems to me the crux of whether Eve was banished from the garden along with Adam rests on whether eating the fruit in and of itself changed her independent of motivation. If the fruit did endow them with a new knowledge then the natural meaning of Gen 3:22 would be that it is this new knowledge which is described in the text (rather than a sin nature with is a concept external to the text) that resulted in Adam being kicked out of the garden.

Lin,
You said:

How can you believe that her turning is not a consequence of the fall?

If her “turning” was against God then this could only happen if she was tempted to sin and fell from the temptation since she did not have a sin nature. Where did the temptation come from? It couldn’t have come from inside her since she had no sin nature inside? Where did the temptation to “turn” against God come from? And if she just decided to give up on God, why did she hold onto His Promise of the Messiah through her? Why did her “turning” against God not destroy her faith in God?

Her turning toward Adam produced Cain, for one thing.

Her turning toward Adam also produced Seth. It also eventually produced Noah and Abraham and David and Mary. Is it really fair to attribute the sin nature of her offspring back to her? If so then why does God encourage women to have children? Does He do this to charge them with their children’s sin?

Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB)
20 “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

If the father will not bear the sins of the son, then how will Eve be charged with the sins of Cain?

And how can Adam rule over her without her consent? The text says nothing about him dragging her out of the garden against her will.

It appears that Eve left the garden willingly to be with Adam, but it is so easy for a person to rule over another person without their consent if the person has the physical power or emotional power to do so. I don’t know if you have ever been ruled over by someone without your consent, but I have. I don’t think that this is a mystery.

You guys are starting to make Eve sound like the comp Eve, a ditzy woman, always easily deceived who acted like a doormat and had no choices and made loyalty to Adam more important than God.

I don’t recall saying anything about Eve being deceived outside garden nor have I read anyone here saying that she was ditzy or a doormat or had no choices. In fact I think I made it clear that she was not kicked out of the garden and that she had the choice to leave. As far as making loyalty to Adam more important to God, it isn’t I who claimed that. In fact I have said that it wasn’t a choice between Adam and God. She could have her husband and her God just like most women. Thank God that we don’t have to make this choice although I realize that some women must make a difficult choice like this.

All I ask is for Scriptural proof that Eve turned her back on God and that she chose Adam over her God. Where is this in the text at all? And is it possible to see Eve as different than the children of Adam?

I don’t know how to do the blue quotation marks so you will have to bear with my version of importing quotes:
As I read through all these comments, I believe it is the belief in sin nature that is causing problems for some of your statements and conclusions.

My comment per Cheryl’s quote (that follows): Cheryl, you state that one of the reasons or ‘witnesses’ you see that establishes that Adam had a sin nature is #2.” He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life.” This would seem to indicate that he had a sin nature before he even participated in the whole incident of taking from the tree of life. In other words, why would God have considered Adam a threat if he didn’t possess-prior to this incident (the Fall)-a sin nature? You don’t state that you believe God also saw Eve as a threat. Therefore, you believe Eve had no sin nature leading up to the Fall. This would imply that God created Adam, alone, with a sin nature (otherwise, where and when did Adam come to possess this sin nature?). So why wouldn’t God have created Eve with a sin nature, especially since she was formed out of Adam? What would be the purpose of creating only Adam with a sin nature unless God had a plan FOR Adam to sin? Yet elsewhere, in other discussions, you stated that the sin nature came as a result of the Fall, not prior to it. That would contradict the basis for your second ‘witness’ here:
Quote from #227 Cheryl: “I believe that there are three reasons why we can understand that Adam has a sin nature:
1. He hid his sin.
2. He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life
3. He was prophesied to be the one who would practice sin through ruling his wife.
I consider all of these a valid witness to Adam’s sin nature.” End of Cheryl’s qoute.

Quote from #280 Pinklight: “Three witnesses of Adam’s sin nature:
Sin of rebellion
Rule
Reaching forth his hand also for the other tree” End of quote.
My comment: Pinklight, it appears that you also are saying that Adam was created with a sin nature and that it is BECAUSE OF this sin nature that he reached forth his hand for the other tree, rather than the sin nature being a result of reaching.

283 Gengwall says: “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…” End of quote.

My comment: This statement or summary also attributes to Adam a sin nature PRIOR to eating from the Tree of Life. (It does not imply Gengwall’s agreement of this summary necessarily.)

I see both a view that Adam somehow had his sin nature before the Fall, where in earlier blog discussions on this site that wasn’t the case, and also simply a problem with the sin nature theory itself. There is nothing to say that Adam needed a sin nature to do what he did. Otherwise, if that is the case, then Eve needed a sin nature to sin, also, which I imagine she did after the Fall, during the rest of her life. She likely sinned at least once. Speculation, yes, but nowhere in the bible does it say that Eve lived a sinless life. So, if she can sin without a sin nature, what is to say we need a sin nature to sin? Human nature is plenty capable it appears of making sinful choices. I see the following claims-direct or indirect-as being very problematic both here and in other arenas:
Troublesome claims or inferences:
1. Adam had a sin nature pre-Fall
2. God made Adam with a sin nature? I thought God created male and female equally spiritually at the starting gate?
3. Yet Eve sinned without having a sin nature? What was the purpose, then, (NOT the consequence) of making Eve able to sin without a sin nature but giving Adam a sin nature? Why would God do that? It makes it really hard-if one takes that view- to not believe God helped Adam to sin by giving him a nature over which he had no choice-almost like God had an active, not passive, hand in Adam’s sinning. We know that can’t be true.
4. All subsequent humans are born with a sin nature (not Jesus, of course.)

Gazza, I share your points and questions.

Also, if all women after Eve supposedly get their sin nature through Adam (which I don’t believe), then it makes it perilously easy for comps to support their claim that women wish to rule over their husbands. After all, the view being given here is that women do NOT get their ‘sin nature’ from Eve, thus, they get it from Adam, which now opens the door to the Pandora’s box of questions of male and female sin natures and tendencies, etc. which could lend itself very nicely to a notion of women getting Adam’s ‘rule-over’ tendency to want to rule over their husbands(or wives?!) which would support comp thinking.

The issues at stake here are not small. Ultimately, truth is at stake, but the fallout of not being very, very careful here in discerning truth in these matters is monumental to say the least.

Cheryl, I think Ezekial 18:20,”…the son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity…the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself…” also makes it difficult to support that all mankind take on the wickedness of the wicked (Adam) in the form of a sin nature. A sin nature is much more than an external consequence, it is a very heavy burden and aspect added to the very core of who a person is.

I do not believe the sin nature theory though I certainly used to. I had just never examined it before. I continue to see it causing many logical problems in this discussion, though it would be time- and space-consuming to resurrect them all here. In terms of logical support and scriptural support-both here and on other blog and websites, I see sin nature as being on par with the comp view of women.

Hi Cheryl

In verse 22 God also describes man as having “become like us knowing good from evil”. As God cannot sin against Himself how do you reconcile that Adam has become like God if it is referring to him experiencing sin?

truthseeker,
Wow, I can’t believe the good questions that are continuing to come! This appears to be an area that we can all learn from and the questions pinpoint the areas where we are unclear.

Cheryl, you state that one of the reasons or ‘witnesses’ you see that establishes that Adam had a sin nature is #2.” He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life.” This would seem to indicate that he had a sin nature before he even participated in the whole incident of taking from the tree of life. In other words, why would God have considered Adam a threat if he didn’t possess-prior to this incident (the Fall)-a sin nature?

Adam was not a threat to the tree of life before he sinned because God gave him full permission to eat from this tree. Remember in chapter 1 God said that they were permitted to eat from every tree in the garden that had seed bearing fruit. Then in chapter 2 we find out that there is only one tree forbidden so we can be assured that the tree of life had lifegiving seed and it was not forbidden to either Adam or Eve before the fall. It was only after the fall that the tree of life was forbidden to them since they could not die as God said they would if they ate from its fruit.

You don’t state that you believe God also saw Eve as a threat. Therefore, you believe Eve had no sin nature leading up to the Fall. This would imply that God created Adam, alone, with a sin nature (otherwise, where and when did Adam come to possess this sin nature?).

Neither Adam or Eve had a sin nature before the fall. God did not create Adam with a sin nature. How did Adam come to possess this sin nature? He came to possess this sin nature through rebellion by reaching out for and eating from the forbidden tree when he had full knowledge that it could not give him wisdom to become like God. Adam was not deceived. Adam ate in full rebellion and this rebellion caused a change in him.

Yet elsewhere, in other discussions, you stated that the sin nature came as a result of the Fall, not prior to it. That would contradict the basis for your second ‘witness’ here:
Quote from #227 Cheryl: “I believe that there are three reasons why we can understand that Adam has a sin nature:
1. He hid his sin.
2. He was considered by God to be a threat to the tree of life
3. He was prophesied to be the one who would practice sin through ruling his wife.
I consider all of these a valid witness to Adam’s sin nature.” End of Cheryl’s qoute.

I have never stated that the sin nature came before the fall. It came at the fall and was not a part of Adam’s creation. When Adam hid his sin he already had this sin nature. It wasn’t until the fall that Adam became a threat to the tree of life. And God gave a prophesy about Adam’s future as a sinful man – he would take a rule over his wife that God did not give him.

Does this make better sense?

1. Creation – no sin nature
2. Reaching forth to take and eat the fruit in full rebellion – sin nature now becomes a part of his own human nature.

283 Gengwall says: “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…” End of quote.

My comment: This statement or summary also attributes to Adam a sin nature PRIOR to eating from the Tree of Life. (It does not imply Gengwall’s agreement of this summary necessarily.)

I think that gengwall would be in agreement with regarding Adam not created with a sin nature and this sin nature came as a result of his willful disobedience.

I see both a view that Adam somehow had his sin nature before the Fall, where in earlier blog discussions on this site that wasn’t the case, and also simply a problem with the sin nature theory itself.

I am not sure how you got confused on this one, but hopefully I have cleared this matter up for you to understand.

There is nothing to say that Adam needed a sin nature to do what he did. Otherwise, if that is the case, then Eve needed a sin nature to sin, also, which I imagine she did after the Fall, during the rest of her life.

No, Adam didn’t need a sin nature to sin. He was given free choice, however without a sin nature, it wasn’t inevitable that he would sin. But sinning in rebellion with full knowledge of the sin and the truth is a very serious issue. Sin is not something that we can fool with and Adam sinning with full knowledge opened the flood gate for a new nature that had a bent towards sin. But Eve did not sin in rebellion so she had no sin nature that would cause her to sin again. God doesn’t give any prophesy about her future sinning and we know that she didn’t have Adam’s sin nature. She could sin because she still had a free will but without deception to take her into sin and with her eyes wide open to the deception that had taken her, she had not reason to sin again. If she continued to sin there would be a problem for what do we do with her sin nature? Is a continued sin nature passed on from Eve to her descendants?

She likely sinned at least once. Speculation, yes, but nowhere in the bible does it say that Eve lived a sinless life.

The Bible is clear about Adam’s sin nature and his continuing to be a threat to continue to rebel, but God gives no such warning about Eve. To charge her with sin would not only be speculative but unwise since we all are entitled to be looked on as innocent until proven guilty. She is not like us, remember?

So, if she can sin without a sin nature, what is to say we need a sin nature to sin? Human nature is plenty capable it appears of making sinful choices.

No one needs a sin nature to sin however without a sin nature there is no compulsion to sin and the sin one does is extremely costly. Lucifer had no sin nature until he took on pride and the desire to rule God and everything else. The sin of one without a sin nature got him severed from God forever. Human nature is plenty capable of making sinful choices as we have the propensity to sin. We are not like Adam and Eve at the creation. We were not created in perfection and with life. We are now created with the propensity to sin at the drop of a hat and we are created with a life that is dying.

I see the following claims-direct or indirect-as being very problematic both here and in other arenas:
Troublesome claims or inferences:
1. Adam had a sin nature pre-Fall,

No such claim is made on this blog.

2. God made Adam with a sin nature?

This is also not claimed by me or anyone here.

3. Yet Eve sinned without having a sin nature? What was the purpose, then, (NOT the consequence) of making Eve able to sin without a sin nature but giving Adam a sin nature?

Eve was deceived into sinning. God chose to give us the free will to choose to obey Him and the freewill to choose to disobey him and be lost. God was not interested in making puppets who loved Him and served Him because they had no choice.

4. All subsequent humans are born with a sin nature (not Jesus, of course.)

Gazza,
You said:

In verse 22 God also describes man as having “become like us knowing good from evil”. As God cannot sin against Himself how do you reconcile that Adam has become like God if it is referring to him experiencing sin?

No, the knowledge that God had and that He created Adam with is the knowledge of good and evil. God has the knowledge of everything there is including evil. Nothing surprises Him and there is no sin that is hidden to Him. But this kind of knowledge, the kind that is acquainted with and knows about sin is not the same thing as the “knowledge” of the forbidden tree. That knowledge is an intimate connection with evil. That kind of knowledge is the experience of sin. Although God knows all about sin, He cannot experience sin because He is holy. But Adam experienced sin and he is the one who brought sin into the world. So the intimate knowledge of sin from the name of the tree in chapter 2 is different from the knowledge about sin from chapter 3 which has no partaking in evil.

I hope this helps!

Hi Cheryl

If the knowledge of good and evil in chapter 3 is knowledge about good and evil then doesn’t verse 22 “become like us knowing good from evil” suggest that Adam has become more like God in his knowledge about sin in eating of the fruit? Could his understanding of good and evil not been somewhat limited while still being created in the image of God (an image is only ever a lesser resemblance) and this understanding increased with the eating of the fruit?

to put it another way:

How can God refer to an intimate knowledge of sin (experience) in the name of the tree in chapter 2, then in chapter 3 when considering Adam after eating that same fruit say Adam has “become like us knowing good from evil” (knowledge about sin) ? Though the phrases don’t use exactly the same word they refer to the effect of the same tree.

Gaza,

How can God refer to an intimate knowledge of sin (experience) in the name of the tree in chapter 2, then in chapter 3 when considering Adam after eating that same fruit say Adam has “become like us knowing good from evil” (knowledge about sin) ? Though the phrases don’t use exactly the same word they refer to the effect of the same tree.

The language that God uses is the perfect tense when He says that Adam had become like God. This is what Adam was and still is as he is in the image of God. This is not what Adam just became. It is a little easier to see from the Andersen-Forbes Phrase Marker Analysis if I can get it to fit here. I don’t want to make it too small or you can’t read it. Let’s see how it comes out:

Gazza,

I tried to get the whole phrase marker on the screen, but it didn’t work for me. Above I cut it up some so you can see the phrases. Do you see that Adam “was” like God. The perfect tense reflects what he is in nature – he was made in the image of God. The forbidden tree did not make him any more like God. In fact the “and now” means “but now” “henceforth” or “from now on”. That is a break in what Adam was created to be. It shows that there is something different now that has caused God to remove the tree of life from him. It isn’t that God was jealous that Adam had become like Him. No, not at all. Adam was made like God in the beginning. It is the evil that now lived in Adam who was and is remaining in the image of God that became the problem.

Does this help to show that the problem was the “but now…” not the fact that Adam “was” in the image of God as “like” God in the beginning?

Another good note is that when God says that “but now lest he reach out his hand…” the term “lest” is God’s way to prevent a predictable event.

conj.: — 1. w. impf. (106 ×), prevention of a theoretically possible event: lest, so that … not; so that he does not stretch out Gn 3:22; — 2. w. impf., prevention of an otherwise predictable event:
A concise Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. (293).

This is the whole issue of the sin nature. It is predictable because of the new nature that lies within Adam.

‘It gave the foundation for why a woman with choices would choose what seemed like a bad choice for her own good. And Eve was not to think that just because she treated Adam in a respectful and loving way that she would receive the same treatment back. .”

Cheryl, I think this is reading into the text. God never says her turning to Adam is a good thing.

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.

Cheryl – “Another good note is that when God says that “but now lest he reach out his hand…” the term “lest” is God’s way to prevent a predictable event.

conj.: — 1. w. impf. (106 ×), prevention of a theoretically possible event:”

A predictable event is not an assured event. As the definition so clearly states, the event is only “theoretically possible”. You can not claim that the cherubims and flaming sword prevented an actual sin, but only a theoretically possible one. I continue to contend that the Tree of Life can not be used as a witness to Adam’s future actual sin.

Moreover, as you state above, the reason to prevent Adam from accessing the Tree of Life was simply to ensure Adam’s death. It was not a sin for Adam to live forever, nor would it have been a sin for Adam to partake of the Tree of Life in an effort to live forever. Nowhere in the text does it say that the Tree of Life was now forbidden. God never repealed his permission to eat from the tree of life. The text only states that it was inaccesible for the reason you point out – that eating from it would prevent Adam’s death. I fail to see how a desire to continue to live and “reaching out” for the means to perpetuate one’s life is a sin.

Cheryl,

Come to think of it..what makes you think God saying to Eve: “He will rule over you” is bad? Does God SAY it is bad? No. We just know such a thing is BAD and part of the warning to Eve.

But some cannot see that her ‘turning’ to Adam is a bad choice? Some old translations interpreted it as ‘alliance’ after the interpretation of turning… as in Eve and Adam form an alliance after the fall. According to you, that is a good thing. But it is NOT. After all, in this alliance, he would rule over her and she would be a doormat and subsequently when Patriarchy is ingrained, women would revert to manipulation tactics for such things as having a male child.

Our human relationships are never to be more than our relationship with God.

Perhaps it would be good for us all to contemplate the horrors of what the fall brought us and exactly what changed after the fall.

I have almost no time today as it is a very full day. I will respond to at least one of the comments. Lin’s comment will take a fuller response so I will leave it for when I have time on my computer.

gengwall you said:

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.

What I was saying is that Eve is not like all women in that she was without sin. But I do believe that we have something that is within all women that is the same although it can be greatly distorted in us because of sin (but was not distorted in Eve).

I believe that within us has been placed a desire to connect deeply with a man on the soul level and that the term soul mate would be the proper way to describe it. In fact I am certain that the term soul mate was coined by a woman. A woman longs to connect emotionally with a man in such a way that they are best friends and she can share all her hopes and dreams with him. It is in this way that she feels loved. It is common for a woman to give the man sex in order to get back what she really longs for.

So while Eve longed for Adam and her soul was tied to him in a deep way, we too have that longing but with the appearance of sin in each of our lives that godly longing can be distorted and women can be manipulative in order to get their needs met.

gengwall, you didn’t answer these questions:

How was Eve the same as all women and how she was different? Did she operate with a sin nature? Has that sin nature (Eve’s) been transferred to all other women?

I would appreciate you taking the time to let me know what your view is and where you are coming from. Also I would be very interested to see how you view the Scriptures backing up your view.

I am off for the rest of the day. Bible study day today plus meeting with our architect in preparation for renovations. I am finally going to get an office with a view. Yeah!

gengwall, you didn’t answer these questions:

How was Eve the same as all women and how she was different? Did she operate with a sin nature? Has that sin nature (Eve’s) been transferred to all other women?

Same – she is a woman and has the same physiology as all women. Different – she is not a daughter of Adam.

So no, I do not believe that Eve “transferred” anything sin wise to the sons or daughters of Adam. Sin comes through Adam. But femaleness does not come through Adam. That comes through Eve. If there is a sin inclination that is uniquely male, and Gen 3:16 testifies to that, why would we not think that there is some corresponding sin inclination that is uniquely female also testified to in that passage?

I will give a more thorough outline of my view maybe tonight. I will start with what I find inconceivable in your view. That is that Gen 3:16 ONLY predicts a virtue in wives and that it ONLY predicts a vice in husbands. I find that not only groundless in scripture but devoid of reason. God is simply not that biased.

Syllogism of your premise

P1a – Adam’s sin nature is to be prone to rule over women
P2a – All who have a human father have Adam’s sin nature
Ca – All who have a human father are prone to rule over women

P1b – All who have a human father are prone to rule over women (Ca)
P2b – All women have a human father
Cb – All women are prone to rule over women

These are the inescapable conclusions of your arguments. They are valid syllogisms whose conclusions flow properly from the premises. The only way to change it, is to change the premise.

If you would then object that P2a is not what you argue (though it plainly is, if males do indeed pass the sin nature, as you have insisted repeatedly), you must present scriptural support for claiming that women do not inherit this, or that only their eggs are sinless. Neither is supportable by scripture, or biology.

The only option left is to to abandon P2a completely, and then explain away women’s sin by claiming that we only sin because we choose to, while men sin because they are inclined to by their maleness. You have redefined “sin nature” to mean a uniquely MALE quality, which females obviously cannot inherit, and that makes women devoid of a sin nature. That is the obvious conclusion of your premise.

(“r” means revised):

P1r – Adam’s sin nature is to be prone to rule over women
P2r – All males with a human father have Adam’s sin nature
Cr – All males with a human father are prone to rule over women

So with the premise, the conclusion follows: all men want to rule over women. All of them.

But another conclusion follows as well: If “sin nature” is “inherited” toward ruling over women, then NO OTHER SINS can be attributed to the fall of Adam. That is, he did NOT open the door to anything but male rule over female. Yet there was Cain murdering Abel.

We must take a deep look at ‘inherited sin’. The Fall was horrible. It changed everything. Even for Eve.

So no, I do not believe that Eve “transferred” anything sin wise to the sons or daughters of Adam. Sin comes through Adam. But femaleness does not come through Adam. That comes through Eve. If there is a sin inclination that is uniquely male, and Gen 3:16 testifies to that, why would we not think that there is some corresponding sin inclination that is uniquely female also testified to in that passage?

I find that not only groundless in scripture but devoid of reason. God is simply not that biased.

gengwall,

Why do we see Adam’s rule over his wife as a sin?

Adam wasn’t given the fruit to eat of the tree, but he took and ate anyway. He also wasn’t given rule over his wife, but God predicts that he will (take) rule over her anyway. God also predicted that he would take from the tree of life so he sets up a watchman to protect the tree. It is apparent that Adam had a problem with taking what he wanted but taking that which he wasn’t given or allowed to have by God.

But why do we see Eve’s desire/turning for her husband as a sin?

Put aside inherited sin nature for a moment!! The passage is directly speaking about Adam and Eve, not their sons and daughters. Please tell me then why you would think that Eve’s desire was sin? Her first sin was due to deception, not taking out of rebellion like Adam what wasn’t given to her. She is no longer deceived. So why is her desire for her husband considered sin by you? I cannot see how it can be sin. How can you see that it is sin?

The inherited sin nature from Adam and femaleness that is passed down from female to female is seperate from the matter of whether or not Eve’s desire for her husband was a sin. I think we need to focus in on whether or not Eve’s desire was sin excluding what Adam’s daughters do or do not do in regards to sin against their husbands. The inhereted sin nature and femaleness are seperate arguments from Eve’s desire.

Adam wasn’t given the fruit to eat of the tree, but he took and ate anyway. He also wasn’t given rule over his wife, but God predicts that he will (take) rule over her anyway. God also predicted that he would take from the tree of life so he sets up a watchman to protect the tree. It is apparent that Adam had a problem with taking what he wanted but taking that which he wasn’t given or allowed to have by God.

And he was given everything but he still had to take more!

He had all the food he wanted that covered the entire eart (given to him after woman was created)
He wasn’t alone, he had a wife
He had a garden to live in
He had work to do – care for the garden
He had God
He had rule over the entire earth along with it’s animals

What was he not given besides fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, rule over his wife and the tree of life once he rebelled? I just wonder why did he have to take more?

I’m just putting my thoughts out-

He wasn’t given the tree of KOGAE
He wasn’t given rule over his wife
He wasn’t given the tree of life after he rebelled (this tree was taken away)

But he’d certainly take all three if he was allowed to do so by God.

God allowed him to take from the tree of G&E (make a choice), and he allowed Adam to rule over his wife (another choice) but God did not allow him to eat from the tree of life (he had no choice because God SAID he would die if he ate from the tree of KOGAE…).

Everything Adam did was based on choice, except for one thing – eating from the tree of life after he rebelled.

Did Eve have a choice in Adam ruling over her?

Did she have a choice in her increased toil and pain? No, because God said that such is what he himself would do.

Was her desire for her husband a choice? No, because it was her desire for him. She could not choose to desire him or not desire him. She just did desire him.

Did she have a choice in Adam ruling over her? In other words was there anyway that she could stop him from ruling over her when in fact God said that Adam would do so? We know it was Adam’s own will to rule over her since God did not give him rule over her, and God did not give him the choice to rule over her or not to rule over her. So it was his own will, not God’s. We also know that God allowed him to rule over her like he allowed him to eat from the TOKOGAE, but did Eve have a choice in letting Adam rule over her? That is the question! Was there anyway that she could have stopped him from ruling over her (if she wanted to) WHEN in fact God said that Adam would do so?

More thoughts-

Adam “ruling” over Eve is an action and not just some “desire” or “want” to rule over her.

God predicted Adam’s actions of rule over his wife, but he did not predict Eve’s actions based on her desire.

Eve has this “desire” for her husband in spit of the increased toil and pain, then what action does she then take towards her husband out of her desire for him? Well, for one she stays with him and has more children even after the pain! But what other action would Eve do towards her husband then based on her desire that would show that her “desire” is a sin? How can desire for one’s husband be a bad thing in and of itself anyway lol!

Thinking…
We can know that when sin desires someone that it is negative because sin is sin, but when a woman (Eve) desires her husband why would we think it is negative unless she is like sin or can be compared to sin? I think such a comparison is completely ridiculous.

I desire cookies.

So?

It’s about who Eve desired – her husband. She didn’t desire to do something to him like rule over him. Adam didn’t desire to rule over Eve either – he judt DID rule over her. Two different things at play here. One is a feeling and the other is an action.

“Did she have a choice in Adam ruling over her? In other words was there anyway that she could stop him from ruling over her when in fact God said that Adam would do so? We know it was Adam’s own will to rule over her since God did not give him rule over her, and God did not give him the choice to rule over her or not to rule over her.”

Oh, my, pinklight – that sounds dangerously like Adam got all the free will choices and Eve got none.

I can have cookies. Could Eve have (or be with) her husband lol! Was there something wrong with her having her husband?

Could sin have Cain? Bad idea.

I’m starting to feel like I cannot believe we are having a discussion on Eve desiring her husband as if it was wrong for her to desire (oh no!) her husband of all things! What a horrible thought lol!

“Adam didn’t desire to rule over Eve either – he judt DID rule over her.”

pinklight,
I’m not following you – how do you think Adam could rule without the will/want/desire to do so?

Oh, my, pinklight – that sounds dangerously like Adam got all the free will choices and Eve got none.

Kay,
Well I’ve only been looking so far at the choices of Adam’s actions, not Eve’s and at Eve “choices” in regards to consequences of the fall for her, not Adam’s. Adam didn’t have choices when God told him how things were now going to be. He didn’t have a choice to but work the ground from which he came – outside of the garden, and die etc.

“Adam didn’t desire to rule over Eve either – he judt DID rule over her.”

pinklight,
I’m not following you – how do you think Adam could rule without the will/want/desire to do so?

Kay, what I’m saying is that there is a difference between Adam’s actions and Eve’s feeling (desire). Ofcourse Adam desired to rule Eve because out of that desire he would rule her, but the text is showing us his action vs. Eve’s emotion. What it comes down to then is that there is no way to pin down any sinful action she had done against Adam out of her desire for him whereas in Adam’s case he did do something to his wife.

“Adam didn’t desire to rule over Eve either

I was implying that the text doesn’t say that he “desired to rule” her.

The difference in desire between both Adam and Eve’s is that Adam desired to do something to his wife (rule over her, an action) whereas Eve desired her husband himself vs doing something to him (an action). Adam desired to do something to another, Eve desired another. I think the differences are important. Details, deatils! ;P

If Genesis had said that Adam merely desired his wife rather than rule over her then how could we conclude that his desire for her was sin? Same thing for Eve. If Genesis had said that Eve desired to _______ her husband then depending on what it was she desired to do to him we could conclude whether or not her desire was sin.

If Adam ruled over Eve and she did not have a choice it would have to of been because he forced his rule onto her.

Eve had all the free will choices that Adam had except where they were different people. Eve didn’t desire to rule over her husband because she wasn’t like him. Adam didn’t desire his wife (at least the text doesn’t say he did) because he wasn’t like her.

I think it is interesting that God said to Eve that her desire “shall be ” rather than ‘will continue to be’. That says to me that it is at the very least likely that something about her desire will now be different than it was pre-Fall. God’s entire statement-curses, predictions, etc., contain negative factors (toil, pain in childbirth, rule over, etc.). Why would we single out Eve’s desire as being positive? It doesn’t fit with the theme of the rest of God’s statement there.

God’s statement regarding Eve’s desire for Adam-if it is construed as a positive or neutral statement-also doesn’t follow the train of circumstances: Adam and Eve erred (sinned, were deceived, etc.) and these are now the negative consequences.

We could, however, play the devil’s advocate, and consider, as the comps do, that there ARE positive attributes within God’s pronouncement. I personally know comps who believe it is a GOOD thing that Adam ruled over his wife. Their rationale being that since Eve was deceived, Adam must now rule over her to compensate for her deceivability. I mean, if we are going to say ‘why not?’ to Eve’s desire being good, then why can’t we have the right to say the same about Adam’s forthcoming rule? If we are going to consider any part of the consequences in a good light, then we have to be willing to examine ALL the consequences in the same favorable light.

I see it as very possible for Eve’s desire to be sinful. Many women desire for their husbands to protect, provide, entertain, be their comforter, etc., etc., to the exclusion-in varying degrees-of trusting in God for these things. That is, while all of these things are not evil in themselves, many women expect more of some or all of these things than their husbands can provide. So, yes, I see it as very possible that Eve’s desire could be evil, objectively. This discussion seeks to determine whether in fact her desire was evil. I think the balance tips in favor of her desire somehow not being quite the right thing.

I also continue to be surprised to see the term ‘sin nature’ bandied about so freely, as though it were somehow explicitly or even implicitly stated in the passages we are addressing. It is no more explicit nor implicit than are the terms ‘head’, ‘headship’, ‘authority over’, etc., as pertaining to Adam and Eve, as the comps try to say are ‘right there in the context’. I can understand why it might be very tempting to think it is there, in either case, but it is NOT there, and that is what deserves our attention.

Hi Cheryl

Thanks for your patience I have finally joined all the dots and can see what you are saying. It leaves me with a further question – if knowledge of good and evil is entirely part of being made in the image of God then would Eve not be culpable for allowing herself to be deceived. If she already knew about evil and that it was wrong then surely choosing to believe the lies of the serpent is a willful act of rebellion?

Eph 5:6 “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.”

If what you are saying is true then Eve like the Ephesians knew what was right from wrong before she was deceived by the “empty words” of the Serpent and was “disobedient”, leaving her under Gods wrath. Or am I missing something else?

I think it is interesting that God said to Eve that her desire “shall be ” rather than ‘will continue to be’.

truthseeker,

But her desire is connected to the increase in toil and pain is it not?

“I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; YET your desire will be for your husband,

I mean, if we are going to say ‘why not?’ to Eve’s desire being good, then why can’t we have the right to say the same about Adam’s forthcoming rule?

Someone needs to tell me how desiring one’s husband is a bad thing. Desiring a husband over God is different from just desiring one’s husband. Desiring to rule over a husband is also different from just desiring one’s husband. The object of the desire is the husband, not an action against the husband.

Adam ate out of rebellion
He didn’t protect his wife
He blamed God and his wife for his sin
He was going to take from the tree of life and so it had to be protected
He had to literaly be thrown out of the garden

He’s got a track record.

Where’s Eve’s record? Or what is there within the text to tell us that her desire was sin? I can find nothing.

Adam wasn’t given rule over his wife and it’s only mention after his rebellion that is, once he’s fallen. Eve didn’t stay deceived though.

Their rationale being that since Eve was deceived, Adam must now rule over her to compensate for her deceivability.

Difference is that she came out of her deception, speaking who had deceived her while Adam stayed rebellious and next blamed God and the woman out of rebellion.

That is, while all of these things are not evil in themselves, many women expect more of some or all of these things than their husbands can provide.

We are talking about Eve though, not Adam’s daughters.

Many women desire for their husbands to protect, provide, entertain, be their comforter, etc., etc., to the exclusion-in varying degrees-of trusting in God for these things. That is, while all of these things are not evil in themselves, many women expect more of some or all of these things than their husbands can provide.

truthseeker,
Not only are you talking about Adam’s daughter and not Eve but also Eve didn’t desire “things” but rather she desired her husband himself, not things, like a rose garden, new skin clothing, or fig newtons.

I also continue to be surprised to see the term ’sin nature’ bandied about so freely, as though it were somehow explicitly or even implicitly stated in the passages we are addressing. It is no more explicit nor implicit than are the terms ’head’, ’headship’, ’authority over’, etc., as pertaining to Adam and Eve, as the comps try to say are ’right there in the context’. I can understand why it might be very tempting to think it is there, in either case, but it is NOT there, and that is what deserves our attention.

I agree. But what then should I call Adam’s continuous rebellion or fallen track record? If there’s a better way to convey it, so be it. How about fallen nature?

Pinklight,
I don’t know if I can say definitively that Eve’s desire is connected to her pain in childbirth any more than we can say Adam’s rule is connected to the ground being cursed and Adam’s having to work it now. It is the word ‘yet’ that makes you think this, I know. It isn’t the only possible logical conclusion.

As for Eve’s track record, all track records begin somewhere. Adam’s began earlier with his choices, Eve’s could be stated as having begun with her deception (the point at which she veered ‘of the path’)-which also bore consequences even though it was deception and not blatant willful rebellion.

It is true that Eve didn’t stay deceived, but that by no means inoculates her from the consequences of her actions born of deception.

As for seeing the possibility for a woman’s desire for her husband being evil or wrong; yes, I can easily see it. We see it all the time in women who desire husbands for their money, for their ability to help father children, for their ability to lend status, for their ‘name’ or fame, etc. Not all that wives may desire their husbands for is always good or right. It is the motivation behind the wife’s desire that determines the righteousness or lack thereof of her desire.

She didn’t desire him to do things for her – the text says she desired him (the person). But I’m hearing things like she desired him more than God, or she desired him to do this. What is it about Eve desiring the very PERSON, a human being, her husband that makes us want to think she desires something MORE that just him? Looks to me like we are not reading about Eve in Genesis 3 but rather about today’s women.

Pinklight, per #345, Adam’s rebellion and other sins could simply be referred to as his sinful acts. His nature can still simply be his human nature. After all, at some point, he did his first sinful act, and so it would have to be said that this first sinful act came out of what-his sinful nature or his human nature? If we say his first sinful act was born of a sinful nature, then we have to conclude that God created Adam (and Eve) with a sinful nature. If we conclude however, that God only created Adam (and Eve) with a human nature, then we have to conclude that it is possible to choose to sin without having a sinful nature-that indeed, all we need to sin is a human nature and some free will.

As for Eve’s track record, all track records begin somewhere. Adam’s began earlier with his choices, Eve’s could be stated as having begun with her deception (the point at which she veered ‘of the path’)-which also bore consequences even though it was deception and not blatant willful rebellion.

Having been deceived one time (sin once) and coming out of that deception is not a track record. If her track record began with being deceived then her track recorded ended after she came out of her deception. She did not continue to do anything, to offend, rebel or be deceived therefore she has no track record.

347 It is true that it says her desire shall be for Adam. Period. However, it does not say whether this is a pure desire or an impure desire. Both are possible. I can say my desire is for my husband. Period. But that doesn’t state why I have a desire for him. It is the ‘why’ that is critical here, and it is unstated. There is always a ‘why’ or a motive for desiring someone. The fact that it is unstated does not mean we can immediately conclude the reason is either pure or impure. We have to look at the whole context.

As for it sounding like modern reasons are being imported, I can’t speak for others, but if I even try to imagine what Eve’s reasons for desiring Adam might have been, my guesses could include things like security, companionship, practical help (with the children or with just living and getting sustainance and shelter, clubbing wild beasts, etc.), physical pleasure, and so forth. Again, a person can have good or bad motives for wanting these things. They might be looking more to their husband for these things than they are looking to God. Who knows? Motive is key. We have to try to discern hers by the greater context. We can’t just conclude that her motives are pure because we think they are or because we think ours would be in similar circumstances.

I find it very intriguing that God said her desire would be for her husband, of all things. He said nothing about her desire for God, Himself, or for any number of other things. I wonder why or why not? I am not saying I have the exact answer to that; I am saying I don’t think it is a given that her desire is necessarily good.

truthseeker,
Okay, how about continuous sinful acts since he just doesn’t quit?

His nature can still simply be his human nature. After all, at some point, he did his first sinful act, and so it would have to be said that this first sinful act came out of what-his sinful nature or his human nature?

I’d say that his first sinful act was made out of choice.

If we conclude however, that God only created Adam (and Eve) with a human nature, then we have to conclude that it is possible to choose to sin without having a sinful nature-that indeed, all we need to sin is a human nature and some free will.

Adam chose to sin when he did not have a sinful nature. But his continuing in rebellion is what makes me use words like “sin nature” because it is what he continued to do – rebel. First he eats, then he blames, then he won’t leave the garden, (has to get forced out literally) etc.

But with Eve I cannot find her continuously in anything (like deception) or continuously doing something (like rebelling).

349, I don’t think having a ‘track record’, i.e. multiple sins, was necessarily what got Adam in hot water. It seems clear to me that it only took one sin to be in hot water; it just so happens he had several. I don’t see God mentioning or referring explicitly to a track record, but rather, simply, to sin.

You say, ‘…having been deceived one time (sin once)’. Are you classifying Eve’s deception as sin?

It is true that it says her desire shall be for Adam. Period. However, it does not say whether this is a pure desire or an impure desire. Both are possible. I can say my desire is for my husband. Period. But that doesn’t state why I have a desire for him. It is the ‘why’ that is critical here, and it is unstated. There is always a ‘why’ or a motive for desiring someone. The fact that it is unstated does not mean we can immediately conclude the reason is either pure or impure. We have to look at the whole context.

You mean a person (particularly Eve) couldn’t just want her husband like the text says? We have to guess that there’s a reason why she desired her husband being something other than her husband, but for a reason like for things? Why do that if the text simply says she desired her husband, period? We can’t just trust the text because we can’t trust that her desire was actually just for her husband, period? To say that her desire was for somehting other than just her husband is not going with just the text.

Pinklight, in #351. If you say, and I quote (I wish I knew how to do that nice blue quotation mark thing! It would be such a timesaver!:)
Your quote: “I’d say his first sinful act was made out of choice”,. Then, are you saying his subsequent sinful acts were NOT made out of choice? If not, then where did those later sinful acts come from? This is the problem many unbelievers (and believers) have who question why they are accountable for actions/sins they do if they were born with (didn’t choose to have) a sinful nature that forces or compels them beyond their abilities to do sinful things. We know God says we are each accountable for our own actions, so those who question this have an extremely valid point.

Even if you say his first sin was his choice, he evidently didn’t need a sinful nature to do it. If he didn’t need a sinful nature to commit one sin, I don’t see where he or anyone else needs a sinful nature to commit more than one sin. If we say his subsequent sins were NOT choice (fault), then we have a real problem. Whose choice were they (the subsequent sins)?

349, I don’t think having a ‘track record’, i.e. multiple sins, was necessarily what got Adam in hot water. It seems clear to me that it only took one sin to be in hot water; it just so happens he had several. I don’t see God mentioning or referring explicitly to a track record, but rather, simply, to sin.

truthseeker,

I agree. And I was using the words “track record” because Adam continued in rebellion by blaming God and his wife.

You say, ‘…having been deceived one time (sin once)’. Are you classifying Eve’s deception as sin?

Yes.

Pinklight, in #351. If you say, and I quote (I wish I knew how to do that nice blue quotation mark thing! It would be such a timesaver!:)

text

Try that but without the spaces that I’ve added

Whoops that didn’t work! Can’t believe it quoted when I added the spaces lol!

Use the arrow key pointing to the left
type blockquote
Use the arrow key pointing to the rigth then forward backslash and type blockquote again

We can, indeed, just conclude her desire is for her husband (presuming a good reason), but that would be odd-to me- when we read the rest of God’s descriptions/predictions being negative in His statement to Adam and Eve. It just doesn’t square up. We can go back and look at some of the arguments against a benign conclusion about Eve’s desire, that have been listed previously.

LOL!

One more time

use the arrow key pointing to the left
type blockquote
Use the arrow pointing to the right
type your text
use arrow key pointing to the left
forward backslash
type blockquote
Use the arrow key pointing to the right

Pink, thanks for the tutorial! Where in the process do I highlight the text I want to quote? 🙂

I am glad no one else is online right now! LOL Ok, do I have to type the whole quote or can I import it by highlighting somehow?

I’ll be back soon truthseeker…

It must be my finger tips. They must be full of sin nature tonight! LOL Oh, dear. Save me someone! I am sinking deep into the mire of ineptitude here! I am slinking lower and lower into my seat as I type this.

Cheryl, how about a link to a tutorial on doing the magical blue quotation mark thingies with the actual intended quote successfully planted between them for any future non-techies like myself? :O I need ALL the steps, as though I had never ever even been in a ‘kitchen’ before. The most basic recipe.

344, Pinklight, the bible doesn’t elaborate on why she desired him, but I cannot yet imagine it was for no reason-why did she desire him, for his blue/green/brown eyes? For the way he made her feel? Because he was tall, dark, and handsome? Short, blond, and ___? I don’t know what it was, but it is the why, the reason, or the motive, since there most certainly had to be one, that I am curious about. I don’t know if it is possible that Eve-or anyone-just desires someone without a reason. She may not have desired him for what he could do for her or provide for her in terms of material items or skills, etc. It may have been something else. At any rate, her motive still matters. I would love to know what a skilled and qualified grammarian, linguist, translator, etc. would have to say about this text. I am none of those. I can only go at it with my limited abilities.

Then, are you saying his subsequent sinful acts were NOT made out of choice? If not, then where did those later sinful acts come from? This is the problem many unbelievers (and believers) have who question why they are accountable for actions/sins they do if they were born with (didn’t choose to have) a sinful nature that forces or compels them beyond their abilities to do sinful things. We know God says we are each accountable for our own actions, so those who question this have an extremely valid point.

No, I’m not saying that when he continued as a rebel that he no longer was a rebel out of choice. He continued as a rebel (next he blamed God and his wife) because he chose to. And because he chose to continue as a rebel that is why I say he had a sin “nature”. In other words, it was who he was. It’s what defined him in a big way. So one thing that made him the person he was, was his choice in continuing to rebel. Does that make sense? Now because this is who Adam was, though a rebel by choice, and we are all born of Adam, that is how we end up with his “nature”. We sin because Adam wanted to and wanted to continue as a rebel. We are born like Adam because we are born from Adam who did not want to repent of his rebellion. Had he repented then it couldn’t be said that we are born like Adam or in Adam because then in that case rebellion wouldn’t be shown to be a part of his nature. And none of this goes to say that God made Adam then with a sin nature, since his initial rebellion and continuation in rebellion was all choice.

You can copy and paste the text you want to quote

There you are Pink! Try throwing me that life preserver again! 🙂

Even if you say his first sin was his choice, he evidently didn’t need a sinful nature to do it. If he didn’t need a sinful nature to commit one sin, I don’t see where he or anyone else needs a sinful nature to commit more than one sin. If we say his subsequent sins were NOT choice (fault), then we have a real problem. Whose choice were they (the subsequent sins)?

This is why my point is about his CONTINUATION in rebellion. (If I new how put “continuation” in bold I would or if I could use italics I would. So I use caps for emphasis btw).
Right, his first sin was choice and didn’t need a sin nature to do it. So he didn’t need a sin nature to continue in his rebellion either. But that why he has a sin “nature” – because he conintued in his rebellion (by choice).

<Lemme see if the arrow key appears when I type it. Last time I typed it, it did not show up.

[blockquote>
There you are Pink! Try throwing me that life preserver again!

I’m trying truthseeker!
If I would have used the < rather that the [ my quote would have worked?

LOL!

There you are Pink! Try throwing me that life preserver again!

Nature to me implies something intrinsic to one’s being rather than a character trait that results from repetitive behavior. When a person rides a horse repetitively and becomes excellent at it, it in no way has any intrinsic impact on that person’s progeny. They aren’t born with a horse-riding nature. They will likely pick it up from their environment if their parent with the excellent horse-riding skills-due to his or her repeated practice-influences them, but it won’t automatically be an inborn trait or nature. Likewise, if I sin in a certain way repetitively, let’s say I gamble for example(if we choose to label gambling as a sin), it in no way imparts a ‘gambling’ nature to my children. They might pick up the habit themselves if they practice it as I have done, but they won’t be ‘born with’ a gambling nature just because I chose to gamble. It will be easier for them to adopt a gambling habit if they are surrounded by it, as is the case with any sin, but that doesn’t automatically imply that a nature to do so is inherent in their makeup at birth.

Hey Pink, I am not ABOUT to judge you for using caps for emphasis (I do, too), when I can’t even hang a pair of blue quotation marks on my walls!!!! LOL!

[blockquote]There you are Pink! Try throwing me that life preserver again![/blockquote]

Had I used the arrow keys rather than the [ ] then these words would have appeared in quotes. Does that work?

380 LOL!

I would say Adam had a human nature, and a sin habit (or one or more sinful habits and a developed sinful character-neither of which would be automatically inherited by nor conferred upon his progeny).

OK, Pink, you really have me snowed now! Where’s #380? I am just trying to master blue quotes and you are into TIME TRAVEL!!!!

OK, I am going to try again, and this way we WILL have a real live #380, also! LOL

like a rose garden, new skin clothing, or fig newtons.

Let’s see if this works. Those examples were funny, by the way! 🙂

YAAAAYYYYYYYY!!!! It worked, Houston, it worked!!!!!

Haha!! It worked!!
🙂

Thanks, I thought the examples were funny too ;P

I swear my number 377 WAS 380 when it posted and I meant to refer to #378 in it not 380 and I was going to correct the comment I was refering to from 380 to 378, but now the comment I was refering to has become 375! LOL! I’ve no idea!

Pink, it is a tad after 2 a.m. where I hail from. After all the effort that went into my flaming success here, my brain cells need some down time so I am going to call it a day! Thanks for bearing with me and have a great evening!!!

380-that’s a hoot!!!! LOL!

Pink, there are goblins out because I JUST typed #383 in my last reply and it came out as #380!!!!! I have no idea, either! 🙂

About #374 –

Learning how to ride a horse and gambling ofcourse are not going to be things that are going to be passed down to one’s children since riding a horse and gambling are not a “part” of one’s being/nature. Rebellion on the other hand can be a part of one’s very being. In Adam’s case rebellion was even though it was his choice. Now maybe someone would have problems with addictions or have an addictive personality – let’s say for the gambler and that, the addictive personality then would be a part of that person’s being. Were they born with it? Could be or they could have developed it.

Also if someone does something (say someone lies all the time) for long enough it can “become them”. In that case their nature then would be that of a liar. Sin can become one with a person.

Really? strange huh? LOL

Have a good evening too. I’m a bit tired also.
Goodnight

You say, ‘…having been deceived one time (sin once)’. Are you classifying Eve’s deception as sin?

Before I’m outta here –

Correction, her deception was not sin, her eating/breaking God’s command though was. How she sinned was through being deceived, not a sin. Now Adam’s sin though was eating/breaking God’s and also eating out of rebellion. So in this way they both sinned differently.

I see absolutely nothing stated in the text about Adam or anyone else developing/now having a sin nature. It is completely and totally absent. Would God have not stated something clearly that was this monumental? Why does everyone read it into the text? If, as egals, we claim to be so careful about what is and isn’t clearly evident and stated in the text regarding women and their ‘roles’, then why do we just jump right in there on this one and pronounce that there is, indeed, such a thing as a sin nature showing up here? It is like the emperor’s new clothes, if you ask me.

If, as is stated above in #390, Eve sinned by eating the fruit and breaking God’s command (1 sin) and we might say, by offering it to Adam and presenting a stumbling,tempting opportunity to him (second sin?-after all, Jesus had harsh words to say about those who cause others to stumble-i.e. little children), then Eve is at least half way or all the way to having sinned the same number of times as Adam, at this point, and this would certainly qualify her for a sin nature, too. I mean, one or two times-what’s the big difference when we are ‘developing a sin nature’?

As for developing a sin nature due to a long enough list of episodes of sin, I only read of two-God says to Adam, because you have hearkened unto the voice of your wife (1) and have eaten of the tree (2). How can two instances be enough to develop an entire nature? If I had a child who rebelled twice, I would in no way conclude they had a rebellious nature-not at the point of having rebelled only twice! There are some children who ‘only rebel’ a few times, and when they receive punishment, etc. for it, never do such things again.

In fact, as I read out the rest of the account about Adam, he is only mentioned a couple more times and those are only minimal factual accounts of him knowing his wife and fathering Cain and Abel. There is no further explicit documentation of Adam continuing to rebel any more than there is of Eve. He is only documented, then, as sinning twice. That hardly is a massive habit-forming number of episodes. (Even if we ‘add a few’ by saying Adam sinned by blaming God and Eve, that is still only a total of 4 episodes. If repeated occurrences is what it takes to make something as deeply ingrained as a ‘nature’, I would hardly think 4 would be an adequate number of times to develop such a thing.

In fact, the more I look at the whole passage, I simply see Eve blaming the serpent for beguiling her, and Adam blaming Eve for giving him the fruit, and God saying, ‘because you did thus and such, this is what is going to happen.’ Period. No mention of sin natures. No further mention of Adam or Eve sinning. The consequences are monumental, of course. But the account is simple. I don’t want to hang more pots and pans onto the wagon than are already there.

Regarding Eve’s desire being ‘to her husband’ which is how the interlinear translates it, I would really like to hear a scholarly, knowledgeable person’s take on what it means to have a ‘desire TO your husband’. That is an awkward way of saying ‘desire for a husband’. I think there is a reason why it is ‘to’ and not ‘for’.

“Regarding Eve’s desire being ‘to her husband’ which is how the interlinear translates it, I would really like to hear a scholarly, knowledgeable person’s take on what it means to have a ‘desire TO your husband’. That is an awkward way of saying ‘desire for a husband’. I think there is a reason why it is ‘to’ and not ‘for’.”

This is because ‘desire’ is not a good translation and takes us into all kinds of error and problems on both sides of egal/comp. God warned Eve that she would turn to her husband and he, in return, would rule over her. Even though history of the translation of teshuqa is there for anyone to see, people still defend ‘desire’ as appropriate. I think it causes a lot of interpretation problems.

I also note that BEFORE God talked to them andright after they ate, Eve was hiding from God with Adam and covering her nakedness, too. Bad choice? Sin? Reaction to sin? The absolute horrible effects of bringing sin into the world?

Eve was caught up in it even though deceived. Her subsequent turning to Adam was not a good choice. I think some here have a comp view of turning to the husband as a good thing. OUr human relationships are nothing compared to our relationship with God. If we are both seeking God, we will have a great relationship. God does not come between humans who are both seeking Him.

Adam rebelled against God and dealt with Him treacherously. Yet Eve chose to turn to Adam. She enabled the sin of patriarchy with a bad choice. God warned her.

God is Soveriegn and could populate the Earth any way He wanted to. Not too long after, He flooded the earth and wiped out all mankind except a few. And Noah ended up drunk and naked!

The effects of the fall were horrible. I shudder to see them watered down here in order to prop up Eve as totally innocent for her choices.

Oh boy, guys, lots to answer and so little time!

Today is an out-and-about day so I will pop in as I can. I will try hard to get to each question from each person. I am trying to mark the questions for myself so that I don’t forget to answer (and forgetfulness is one of those things that happens quite naturally at my age!)

I am going to put Mark and Gazza at the top of my list when they ask questions since I feel that die-hard comps (Mark) or one who might be a semi-comp but is open enough to ask sincere questions (Gazza) gets special treatment here. Not that the rest of you aren’t special. You all are special. But there are so few comps around who challenge or question on my blog that I want to treat them with priority.

Now as far as the numbering, I was removing a few comments last night that were technical questions. I am not sure I should have done that as it seems to have confused a few of you 😉 because it changed the end numbering. Sorry about that guys and gals.

I would also like to ask for patience from all as I work through the questions. I am feeling a bit overwhelmed and it will take me time to respond. I am working on my new book and to do a good job it is going to take me long hours away from my blog. I am going to try to post at least one new blog post a week and keep up with the comments as best I can, but I can’t promise to be super woman. I was blessed to have my deadline extended to August 30th but there is a whole lot of work yet to do and with re-writes and sending the manuscript out to those who would like to write a review, it is going to be touch and go to get it all finished in time.

I haven’t finished reading all the comments that came in yesterday and I will do that later today plus get to the questions later. Thanks for asking such good questions and keeping that wonderful community (yet passionate!) spirit that I love on this blog. If I could, I would reach out and give each one a hug and tell you how much you mean to me.

A special public thanks to pinklight for all her hard work picking up the slack when I can’t answer. I think it has been a couple of years since she has been hanging around and my! what a growth this gal has had in knowledge and boldness. I remember the times when she used to challenge me too (and likely still will) whenever she thought I had it wrong. Thanks pinklight for being gracious and helpful and for speaking out when I was just too busy to be here!

Okay, I am gone now for awhile. Will be back as soon as I can.

Wow! What a discussion. I love it.

I will now post my view as requested by Cheryl in #316 above. Before I do that, and since I have been reading a bunch of legal complaints in the last 24 hours related to Obamacare, let me first say that my statement incorporates all the testimony in the preceding posts numbered 1-394. LOL. *shakes head to remove legalese cobwebs*. Most of what I will post has been represented and debated by the many participants and so should not be a great surprise. A little of what I post may cause me to lose some allies from the debate. But so be it. I will try to do this in a systematic way, and I will try to be brief (but will fail miserably).

I must again start with what I believe is Cheryl’s view. Here is a slightly 😉 hyperbolic paraphrase of what I “hear” in Cheryl’s (and pinklight’s) argument.

God: Eve, there are some unfortunate consequences that are going to affect you personally because of the situation. You will have an increase in sorrow and in pregnancy and raising children will be generally not fun. This is all that jerk Adam’s fault, of course. Yet you will not succumb to what would be perfectly justified anger toward him. No indeed. Instead, you will continue to desire to connect deeply with him on the soul level in such a way that you are best friends; a level where you can share all your hopes and dreams with him. Yet, can you believe this, that dirty rotten no good so and so will not only not appreciate your efforts to be his soul mate, but he will take advantage of your goodness and purity and lack of ill will and instead dominate and oppress you all of your days. There is more, I’m sad to say. You, being female, will pass on your goodness to all your daughters. Oh sure, now and then one of them might go against her better nature and fall to her sin nature that she inherits from that misogynistic pig husband of yours, but by and large all women will naturally be kind hearted and model this pure desire you have for Adam. But since Adam is both evil and male, he will pass on only his abusive, ruling nature to men and they will subject their wives in the future just as Adam will subject you.

Now, that is quite dramatic, but it is in essence the argument that Cheryl puts forth as the correct interpretation of Gen 3:16.

I see Gen 3:16 as more balanced than that. But I still must postpone my interpretation and first look at the rest of scriptural teaching (not biblical history) when it deals with marriage.

When God instructs us about marriage in scripture, He always maintains a balance between husband and wife. Genesis 2:24 is the best example of this. Although He created them distinctly male and female, the two are equal and create, in godly marriage, a one flesh union. 1 Cor 7 is also a stark example, with Paul addressing husband and wife with instructions to be explicitly equal in relation to each other in sexual matters. We see the balance in Song of Solomon, where neither lover is dominant and both of their desires are unconditionally met. And we see it in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3, where, although making gender distinctions, the instructions to each gender have equal weight and produce balanced results to the marriage. In all of these cases God’s teaching on marriage is gender balanced, with neither gender being better or worse, or getting more or less, than the other.

Why would God deviate from the pattern here? Why would God all of a sudden elevate one gender while denigrating the other? Moreover, why would God predict a pattern of behavior that is neither lived out in real life human experience or addressed in subsequent teaching? It just doesn’t make any sense unless Gen 3:16 has nothing to do with marriage; unless it is exclusively about Adam and Eve. But nobody suggests that that is the case. So I am left with the conclusion that such an interpretation is unreasonable and unscriptural. But do I have support for a more balanced view? I believe I do.

When I look at Gen 2:24, I see the model of godly marriage. I think all would agree. When I look at Ephesians 5, I see instructions on how to strive toward bringing our marriages back to that godly model in defiance of our sinful tendencies. I think others agree, although to varying degrees. But where in scripture are the specifics of sin addressed to which Ephesians 5 is applicable? I believe it is in our verse, Gen 3:16. To me, Gen 3:16 is the sin axis around which Gen 2:24 and Eph 5 rotate – the ideal of Gen 2:24 on one pole, the path to return to the ideal on the other pole of Eph 5. Of course, for this to be true, one would need to establish that Eve’s “desire” is sinful. I would even contend that it is sin of the same kind as Adam’s “rule”, i.e. sin that is directly harmful to Adam.

I am already going too long. Let me summarize my objections and opinions that lead to the above conclusion quickly.

On conjunctions – Cheryl is correct that the conjunctions could be translated “yet”, but that is only one possibility. If the verse says what she says it says, then her conjunctions are correct. But you can’t decide what the conjunction must be and then determine the meaning of the conjoined phrases. You have to determine the meaning of the phrases and then the conjunctions fall in line. It is just as likely that phrases 2 and 3 are not subsequent and antithetical to each preceding phrase, but are instead simply items 2 and 3 in a list of consequences and not so intimately related to the preceding phrases. So “and” is just as valid an interpretation.

On “desire” – we continue to use that word because it is in all the modern translations, but we all know that “desire” is somewhat inadequate. The correct term is more likely “turning”. Other synonyms may be “inclination”, or “attention”, or “interest”, or “focus”. The point is that whatever “desire” is, it can be positive or negative based on context.

On prepositions – This “desire” or “turning” is almost unanimously viewed as “to” or “toward” Adam, and justifiably so because that is the general meaning of the preposition being used. But, that preposition can also mean “against” as it does in Gen 4:8 when Cain rises “against” Abel. In cases where the two actors in the phrase are antagonists, against is a proper and often more appropriate translation. It could work in Gen 4:7 as well, and maybe should be used: “Its (sin’s) desire (or turning) is against you (Cain) and you must rule over it”. Certainly, the element of antagonists is satisfied and the verse does not lose any meaning or power when “against” is substituted for “for” or “toward”.

Cheryl acknowledges this usage but insists that there is no antagonist in Gen 3:16 to justify it there. I am incredulous at the suggestion that Adam is not antagonistic to Eve. Not only has he brought humanity to this point through his rebellion, and caused significant and painful consequences to Eve, but the future, which the verse is explicitly addressing, will be one where he engages in an oppressive and abusive rule over her. In the future, Adam and Eve will absolutely be antagonists. So, Eve’s “turning” could absolutely be against Adam.

On sin nature – Cheryl’s trump card is that there is no second witness to Eve sinning outside the garden so whatever “desire” is, it can not be claimed with scriptural support to be sinful. I counter that Adam’s “rule” also has no second witness, and although Cheryl has suggested numerous scriptural solutions to that challenge, they are woefully unconvincing. I, on the other hand, contend that God is sufficient witness to Himself. God is not a false prophet, and so there needs be no second witness to a prophecy about Adam’s sinful rule that proceeds directly and audibly from God. The same is true for any sinful behavior on Eve’s part. We can quibble about rebellion and deception all we want, but if God is saying Eve sinned, we’d best believe it.

So, my view of Gen 3:16 is that it is God’s prophecy about the destruction, due to sin’s influence in the world, of godly marriage as testified to in Gen 2:24. Both Adam and Eve, (and subsequent husbands AND wives) are party to this destruction – Adam through unloving “rule” and Eve through a disrespectful “turning”. The good news is that we can fight for our marriages and work to return them to their rightful design. Some people throughout history were able to do that on their own. Never-the-less, God gives us the behavior patterns to implement through His instructions via Paul in Ephesians 5, and Peter in 1 Peter 3. We can return to a Gen 2 model of marriage, but only if we recognize that both Husband and Wife have Gen 3 described flaws that need correction.

Now as far as the numbering, I was removing a few comments last night that were technical questions. I am not sure I should have done that as it seems to have confused a few of you because it changed the end numbering. Sorry about that guys and gals.

LOL I was wondering about that last night, Cheryl! ;p

Thought maybe you were deleting comments last night when the numbers for the comments were changing. Funny.

“Kay, what I’m saying is that there is a difference between Adam’s actions and Eve’s feeling (desire). Ofcourse Adam desired to rule Eve because out of that desire he would rule her, but the text is showing us his action vs. Eve’s emotion. What it comes down to then is that there is no way to pin down any sinful action she had done against Adam out of her desire for him whereas in Adam’s case he did do something to his wife.”

pinklight,

For me, the jury is still out on the meaning of ‘teshuqua’ – I’m not sold on ‘desire’ as the only correct possibility. And even if it was a “good” “desire,” it can, as someone else stated, not be returned in kind. Living by one’s emotions, whether good or bad, is not the same as making godly choices. Now if the word in question was ‘love’, I might better understand your point.

The bottom line for me is that, at present, we all suffer the consequences of sin on the world – no matter who deserves blame or punishment.

Of course, for this to be true, one would need to establish that Eve’s “desire” is sinful

gengwall,
This is THE key. That Eve’s desire was sinful CANNOT be established from the scriptures. Therefore from where I’m sitting, there is no argument. If it cannot be established then what, why, what? From the scriptures, we are left without reason to believe that her desire was a bad thing. JUST AS we don’t have reason to believe from the scriptures that her testimony of God’s command was false, we’ve no reason to believe that her desire or turning toward her husband was negative because in both cases there is nothing in the scriptures to establish either. And that is why we just go with what the text gives us.

Then there’s Adam who continued in rebellion. Eve didn’t rebel. And it is a fact that Adam continued as a rebel without repentance.

We are going around saying that it’s possible that her turning to her husband was sinful, and why when the text does not provide a reason! What reason do we have from the text that her desire was sin? What did she do that makes us want to believe this?

What about EVE (I’m not talking about modern women or any other women) makes us look at her as a woman who had bad intentions? What in the text tells us that her will towards Adam was twisted? Was she harmful to Adam or something out of will? When did she hurt him? Did she become evil after eating the fruit or something? When did she become a rebel? At what point did she will to harm Adam and why or where would this evil intent come from?

Was Eve an abuser? ROTFLOL

I see absolutely nothing stated in the text about Adam or anyone else developing/now having a sin nature. It is completely and totally absent. Would God have not stated something clearly that was this monumental? Why does everyone read it into the text? If, as egals, we claim to be so careful about what is and isn’t clearly evident and stated in the text regarding women and their ‘roles’, then why do we just jump right in there on this one and pronounce that there is, indeed, such a thing as a sin nature showing up here? It is like the emperor’s new clothes, if you ask me.

truthseeker,
It is CLEAR in Genesis that Adam rebelled (broke God’s command knowing what he was doing). “Rebel” is not in the text but the idea is there. I’m not reading into the text that he became a rebel.

What’s the nature of a rebel? Sin?

Was Adam who is the father of the race, a rebel or not? Or is he not the even father of the race?? *eyes cross*

pinklight – “This is THE key. That Eve’s desire was sinful CANNOT be established from the scriptures.”

Unless her turning was against Adam, or unless her turning was away from God. What is most important to note is that scripture doesn’t tell us directly whether Eve’s desire is either good or bad. You have no more direct proof than I. So we must look at the surrounding circumstances.

What we can establish from scripture is that the word being used can be used to indocate bad turning (Gen 4:7) or good turning (Song of Solomon). The context needs to be examined. So, which of the only other two situations in scripture is Eve’s desire more similar to? It is clearly Gen 4:7, because not only the similarity in sentence structure but the existence of conflict in both. Add to that the general theme of the Gen 3 narrative from God which contains nothing good, and we can determine from the only clues available that Eve’s desire was not good. It is debatable what was bad about it, but it was bad.

So, is God a God of confusion? Does he leave us hanging about what he means in Gen 3:16? I know wyou would agree with me the answer is “no”. The evidence that God provides for us clearly indicates that her desire was bad.

Pinklight, #402, you ask, “what is the nature of a rebel? Sin?” The nature of a rebel is a human nature though the rebel may have developed a rebellious character or set of responses. You are still not differentiating between an intrinisic nature, i.e. what one is born with and never loses during one’s earthly life, versus one’s character or habits, i.e. those things which become part of a person’s characteristics but which are reversible or changeable-and which a person may not have been born with.

“What’s the nature of a rebel? Sin?”

Since the root of sin is unbelief, wouldn’t it actually be unbelief? Adam heard God’s words that if he ate of the fruit he would die… and he did not believe God – he quit having faith. (or he had a death wish)

truthseeker,
Okay, I’m back and ready to tackle some of the questions/issues brought up.

I am going to answer your questions on a new post, because I think that the issue of the sin nature deserves to answer the challenges in a place where all can see. Not everyone will endure reading through over 400 comments. Also if I create a post to address this issue, then if/when it comes up again I can just link to the post instead of taking time to answer the questions again because surely I won’t likely do it the easy way by find my answers in the mass of comments. So your comments, questions, challenges, etc will be the topic of the next post, okay?

Gazza,
You said:

Thanks for your patience I have finally joined all the dots and can see what you are saying.

No problem and I am very glad to hear that you are understanding the point that I have brought out regarding the inspired words of Scripture. That makes me feel like it is worth the effort to try to explain things. Your questions really help me to understand where the gaps still exist that I haven’t filled in for you yet. Much appreciated.

It leaves me with a further question – if knowledge of good and evil is entirely part of being made in the image of God then would Eve not be culpable for allowing herself to be deceived.

Again this is an excellent question!

First of all I should explain that there there is a basic knowledge given to both that is part of the essence of being in God’s image. This is the thing that we call the conscience. It informs us of good and evil and it is something that God has told that we must not overlook. Those who go against their conscience in such a way that they “sear” their conscience have made this gift of God to us of no effect.

So both Adam and Eve had the very basics of the knowledge of good and evil. But Eve had her knowledge by-passed by the deception of the serpent. She did not go against her conscience and act in rebellion. She had her conscience bypassed by trickery. I believe that this happened because she lacked a piece of information that Adam had in his experience with God before she was created.

Paul explains in 1 Timothy 1 that some sin is committed not through rebellion or outright hostility to God but because of ignorance and this ignorance brings unbelief.

If she already knew about evil and that it was wrong then surely choosing to believe the lies of the serpent is a willful act of rebellion?

Scripture never describe Eve’s actions as willful rebellion. Let’s deal with the verse you quoted to show the difference between us and Eve.

Eph 5:6 “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.”

We have two safety factors set up for us – our conscience and God’s Word. Eve had her conscience and she had her husband’s experience of God’s nature as Creator before she was created if he had shared his knowledge with her. He was the safety zone for her so that she would not have been deceived, but he failed her. He did not correct the false representation of God and he knew the truth. In Genesis 2 we see Adam created outside the garden and the garden created for the benefit of Adam after his creation. Seeing the work of the Creator through both the special garden and the animals and then finally his own wife solidified the uniqueness of the Creator for Adam. He was a being that was created from the dirt and there was nothing in that field when he was created. He literally saw the creation of the garden of Eden and some of the animals as God formed them from the ground and brought them to Adam to name. What was barrenness at his creation was brought to life by the Creator. He saw first hand the different between the God who creates all things and himself who had no creative power as a “god”. He was not deceived.

My DVD set brings out all of this to help people understand the amazing things that one man alone was privileged to see. It takes us back to the inspired words of the Scripture that should not be missed to see the full picture of what God really did for the first man. There is no wonder why Adam was not deceived.

If what you are saying is true then Eve like the Ephesians knew what was right from wrong before she was deceived by the “empty words” of the Serpent and was “disobedient”, leaving her under Gods wrath. Or am I missing something else?

You are missing something. Look at the verse just before the one you quoted. Look at Ephesians 5:5 along with 5:6

Ephesians 5:5–6 (NASB)
5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.

The Ephesians knew with certainty because they had the words of God. They had the gospel brought to them and it was taught to them from the Old Testament record along with signs and wonders and the testimony of the apostles (a good three witnesses).

But think about Eve. She had God’s word in what she could eat but she had never experienced Him as Creator since everything was created by the time she arrived on the scene. She was ripe for deception because she was missing both the experience that Adam had and sound doctrine about God’s nature in Creation. This is one reason why Paul gives the solution of learning sound doctrine as an antidote to deception.

So what did Eve know about God’s creative actions as the one and only Creator? It appears that she is missing all of the knowledge that Adam had in his experience with God before she came along. All it would have taken is for Adam to share his experience with the Creator who is separate and not like His creation and the lies would have unraveled. But she didn’t have one who was willing to be the watchman on the wall to save her from the enemy. She so was taken captive not as a result of ignoring the knowledge of the Creator. She was taken captive by the things that she didn’t know. If the Ephesians set aside their knowledge of the truth to accept the empty, useless words of liars, they will experience God’s wrath.

Do you see the difference?

I would really recommend the entire teaching on my DVD set. The DVD setting with the teaching done with graphics and visual examples has really helped a lot of people to understand the complete picture. I am going to be recreating it in a slightly different way through my book.

Kay,
You said to pinklight:

For me, the jury is still out on the meaning of ‘teshuqua’ – I’m not sold on ‘desire’ as the only correct possibility. And even if it was a “good” “desire,” it can, as someone else stated, not be returned in kind. Living by one’s emotions, whether good or bad, is not the same as making godly choices. Now if the word in question was ‘love’, I might better understand your point.

The interpretation of “turning” doesn’t actually go along with the Hebrew word for “desire”. It comes from the Hebrew word that is translated as “for”. I think an even better translation is from the Brown-Drive-Briggs lexicon which says it means “longing”. I get the picture of her soul longing for her soul mate.

gengwall,
I’ll try really hard to get to your comments tomorrow. I just wish I had more time than I do. Sometimes my days are so filled that I don’t get a chance to get onto my blog until late in the evening and even after two hours of reading and answering the questions I am far from done. Tomorrow is another day. I’ll place you first then.

Kay, #406: Adam also simply disobeyed. That would be a sin of disobedience. We know God tells us that those who love Him will obey Him. Perhaps it could also be the sin of idolatry-loving one’s own way more than loving God’s way. Human nature; many sinful choices and actions.

We have to ask why the Septuagint used ‘turning’. This is the translation quoted quite a bit in the NT. Then we have to ask why Turning was used almost exclusively (except for the Latin Vulgate around 400 AD which translated it as “power”) until around 1300 when Pagnino translated it as ‘lust’ and lust it stayed up to the AV until it was then translated as ‘desire’ in modern translations.

I really recommend reading about the history of the translation of the word teshuqa and looking at what the oldest translations used. Bushnell, in her book, explores this word in depth and looks at the history if it’s translation. You can get most of her book online for free.

I know Cheryl is going to start a new post on Adam’s sin nature and I think that is good. But I want to add a pre-fall question here, because it applies to Eve and her potential for post garden sin.

We know that Adam sinned out of rebellion and Eve sinned out of deception. Cheryl has, I believe rightly, pointed out on many occassions that Eve’s deception came about because of a lack of knowledge. But that raises further problems with a sinless Eve after the fall.

If Adam’s sin nature is a result of the fall, and he didn’t have it before the fall, then we would have to say that both he and Eve were alike in “nature” as it relates to sin. Indeed, they are both equally endowed with God’s image, so whatever propensity or capability to sin existed in one must have existed identically in the other. So, doesn’t that make Eve just as likely to sin out of rebellion as Adam? Isn’t the rebellios “nature” in both of them? Eve was deceived, so didn’t get to the point of rebellion when she ate the fruit. But that doesn’t mean she was incapable or immune from rebellion. It just didn’t happen to her at the fall. And although her susceptability to deception may have changed as a result of the fall, her core capability to rebel was unaffected. Isn’t it possible that she, maybe even more than Adam, had potential for rebellious sin after they left the garden?

I will add that I don’t think God’s image contains some sin component. That is not what I mean to imply. What I am getting at is that God gave Adam and Eve free will to make choices. That free will was equal and the choices available also equal. That includes the choice to rebel. It seems to me that the difference choices between Adam and Eve at the fall had only to do with knowledge, not nature. Adam chose to rebel because he had the knowledge to avoid being deceived. Eve was just as capable of a choice to rebel, but her lack of knowledge led to her being deceived. Adam may have had his nature transformed at the fall to now contain a propensity to make rebelious choices – that will be argued in the other post – but nothing about Eve’s experience changed her capability of making rebellious choices. It only changed her susceptibility to deceit.

If, as is stated above in #390, Eve sinned by eating the fruit and breaking God’s command (1 sin) and we might say, by offering it to Adam and presenting a stumbling,tempting opportunity to him (second sin?-after all, Jesus had harsh words to say about those who cause others to stumble-i.e. little children), then Eve is at least half way or all the way to having sinned the same number of times as Adam, at this point, and this would certainly qualify her for a sin nature, too. I mean, one or two times-what’s the big difference when we are ‘developing a sin nature’?

Hi truthseeker,

But a deceived woman gave fruit to her husband. It’s not like this was a woman who knew what she was doing at the time she gave the fruit to her husband. Adam even knew that she gave him the fruit out of being deceived because he wasn’t deceived. Also God doesn’t blame the woman (by saying “Because you have” or “Because you have done this”) for giving the fruit to Adam, and this has to be because she was deceived. But he does blame Adam for listening to his wife and the serpent FOR deceiving Eve and the serpent was cursed for deceiving Eve. So what she did besides just eating – give the fruit to Adam out of deception doesn’t result in a blame of guilt by God and the reason why is because she was deceived. Now say it were Adamm who had offered his wife the fruit while not deceived – or place Eve in those shoes – God would have placed blame on the one who did that because they would have done so out of rebellion or knowing that what they were doing was wrong.

So The serpent was cursed for deceiving Eve but God did not curse the woman, punish her or blame her for giving fruit to Adam because she was deceived. But had she not been deceived and then given fruit to Adam, then yes, she would have been guilty of offering the fruit out of temptation or rebellion. Also Eve did not cause an innocent Adam to stumble since he wasn’t deceived.

And it’s not that Adam “developed” a sin nature. His choices just made for who he was.

truthseeker,

Her deception was not sin, it was her breaking the command (eating) that was sin.

truthseeker #’s 304, 339, & 391

I too had for many years believed in the doctrine of “inherited sin-nature” from Adam as being true without question.

The doctrine of original sin is one of the cornerstones of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism.

I no longer believe this doctrine because I fail to see how it can be legitimately supported by the Biblical record in context.

I believe that the doctrine of orginal sin is largely a product of Greek dualism advanced by Augustine and other post Constantine fathers.

Hellenistic Christianity views humankind as sharply demarcated components of body, soul, and spirit, whereas the ancient Hebrews had no such baggage, and saw humans as INTEGRAL units of body soul and spirit with no lines of demarcation.

I realize that this thread is not really a forum for this comment, but on the other hand I feel that this issue (original sin) is very germane to the topic of whether or not all women through Eve should be punished for her part in the Fall of the world.

“And it’s not that Adam ‘developed’ a sin nature. His choices just made for who he was.”

But that is not what has been claimed here by Cheryl. The claim is that Adam’s sin nature is something that came into existence at the point he sinned, i.e. it did not exist prefall. Do you disagree with Cheryl here pinklight? Are you claiming that Adam had a different, additional sin “nature” before either Adam or Eve had committed any sin?

I think I need to rephrase a question of mine to Cheryl from an earlier time but in light of the discussion. Do you believe Eve was incapable of sin outside of an circumstance of deception? In other words, do you believe that it was impossible for Eve to deliberately sin in the manner that Adam did? If so, I must conclude that you believe she had a different “nature” than Adam even pre-fall, since it is clear that it was not impossible for him to deliberately sin.

Greg,

The doctrine of original sin is one of the cornerstones of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism.

I no longer believe this doctrine because I fail to see how it can be legitimately supported by the Biblical record in context.

The original sin doctrine you are talking about is the doctrine that mankind has inherited Adam’s sin. That is not correct. You may also be interested in my next post. You are right that the doctrine of the fall and how it affected us is very germane to the issue of whether Eve should be punished further for her sin, etc. I think it will be a lively discussion on the topic. I will work on it tonight and see how far I get.

gengwall,
Okay, I am back to deal with your questions. The dentist gave me a headache this morning so I wasn’t about to tackle a question when I was in throbbing pain.

gengwall,
You asked:

I think I need to rephrase a question of mine to Cheryl from an earlier time but in light of the discussion. Do you believe Eve was incapable of sin outside of an circumstance of deception? In other words, do you believe that it was impossible for Eve to deliberately sin in the manner that Adam did?

Neither Adam or Eve was incapable of sin, however sin would not happen to either without either deception or rebellion. Adam fell through rebellion and Eve fell through deception.

If so, I must conclude that you believe she had a different “nature” than Adam even pre-fall, since it is clear that it was not impossible for him to deliberately sin.

Adam and Eve did not have a different nature pre-fall. However the choice to sin with one’s eyes wide open to the full knowledge of what you are doing in rebellion against God has a tragic consequence and that is a change in nature. When Adam sinned his nature changed from one capable of sin to one bent on sin with a full enslavement to sin.

Greg, thanks for the brief background info. That is very interesting and helpful.

Lin, excellent question points and thanks for the links!

Pink, #390, you say that Eve’s sin was eating/breaking God’s command. My issue is not and never has been that her deception is her get-out-of-jail-free card in terms of trying to pin rebellion on her. I get that. My point has been and is the one Geng is also making, in part, and that is that whatever enabled Adam to sin at the fall, was also in Eve, and if one says it wasn’t, then Adam and Eve were NOT created equally in God’s image, and if one says they WERE created equally in God’s image, then Eve had the same capabilities to sin as did Adam, whether she used them identically, (same way, same time, etc.) or not.

And further, as Geng is also questioning, Adam already HAD this ability to sin at/leading up to the fall, obviously, because he did sin, yet Cheryl has indeed claimed that the sin nature had its inception at the Fall, as a result of the actions there. Finally, it seems abundantly clear that Adam (and Eve, IMO) was totally capable of making sinful choices without the additional help of possessing a sin nature.

gengwall,
You asked:

If Adam’s sin nature is a result of the fall, and he didn’t have it before the fall, then we would have to say that both he and Eve were alike in “nature” as it relates to sin. Indeed, they are both equally endowed with God’s image, so whatever propensity or capability to sin existed in one must have existed identically in the other. So, doesn’t that make Eve just as likely to sin out of rebellion as Adam? Isn’t the rebellios “nature” in both of them?

No, there is no rebellious nature until one acts out in rebellion. They were both created perfect and without either sin or a sin nature. Could Eve have sinned out of rebellion after the fall in the garden? If she did then it would be important for us to know this. This is because rebellion is passed on to us from one human alone. If Eve had sinned out of rebellion before the fall or after the fall, then she too would have had a sin nature and she too would have passed that sin nature onto whatever children she had after her rebellion. This would have affected her one seed. However we know that she never ever sinned out of rebellion because the Bible says that sin came into the world through one man and this was written after she was dead.

Eve was deceived, so didn’t get to the point of rebellion when she ate the fruit. But that doesn’t mean she was incapable or immune from rebellion. It just didn’t happen to her at the fall.

She certainly was not immune from rebellion however rebellion is an unusual sin for perfect creations. In the angels only one angel originated rebellion and 1/3 of the angels followed satan in that rebellion while 2/3 never sinned in all the eons of time since they were created.

As far as Adam and Eve, according to the age they were when a child is said to have been born, it is possible for them to have lived in perfection for a hundred years or more before the fall. That is normal for perfect humans who are not sinners but only “capable” of choosing to sin. Now that sin has come into the world none of us could ever say that we have lived for 80 years without sin. It isn’t possible for us while it was absolutely possible for them.

And although her susceptability to deception may have changed as a result of the fall, her core capability to rebel was unaffected. Isn’t it possible that she, maybe even more than Adam, had potential for rebellious sin after they left the garden?

I think that it is certainly possible for her to have chosen to become rebellious however the account of sin and her seed appears to disprove any actuality of rebellion. The 2/3 of the angels that didn’t sin with satan stayed with God. Eve had her eyes opened so she wasn’t going to be deceived again, but she also did not start with a spirit of rebellion and no such spirit is ever recorded in the Scriptures. Since Eve’s seed had to remain free from any inherited rebellion, we can be confidently sure that she remained free of rebellion even outside the garden.

Hey all,

Can we wait for just a bit to continue the discussion on sin nature until I get the new post up so that we can have a record of the conversation there? It can be confusing to have discussions in two places so anything about sin nature should go to the new post (hopefully I can get it up tonight or sometime tomorrow) and anything else can fall under this post. Just keep note of your questions and/or thoughts so you don’t lose your train of thought and put them on the new post. Thanks!

“Adam and Eve did not have a different nature pre-fall. However the choice to sin with one’s eyes wide open to the full knowledge of what you are doing in rebellion against God has a tragic consequence and that is a change in nature. When Adam sinned his nature changed from one capable of sin to one bent on sin with a full enslavement to sin.” Cheryl, #422.

Cheryl, in your first sentence you say Adam and Eve did NOT have a different nature pre-fall and in yur last sentence you say Adam’s nature changed. That is completely contradictory.

Further, you say his nature went from capable to sinning to bent on sinning. Where does the bible explicitly say that in the Genesis account or anywhere?

Finally, the consequence or description of having the choice to sin with a greater knowledge of the consequences is NOT a changed nature; it is changed knowledge base. Learning more does not necessarily change one’s nature. It does increase one’s knowledge and/or awareness.

I posted my last before I read your prior.

truthseeker,
I’ll just answer this one here.

Cheryl, in your first sentence you say Adam and Eve did NOT have a different nature pre-fall and in yur last sentence you say Adam’s nature changed. That is completely contradictory.

It isn’t contradictory if you understand me correctly. I am saying that Adam’s nature changed at the fall. Until he acted on what was only a possibility before, he was no different than Eve. But the moment that he acted in rebellion, that moment his nature changed. Since Eve did not act in rebellion her nature did not need to change with the rebellion because there was no rebellion. If that is contradictory, I fail to see where it is contradictory.

It is the same thing for satan. Before he fell his nature was good and righteous. When he choose to rebel as a result of becoming proud his nature changed. Once the nature changes it doesn’t go back to what one walked away from. Does this make sense?

gengwall,
A longgggg time ago you said:

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.

The second witness is really appropriate regarding whether Adam had a continued action of sin. This proves the sin nature. The issue of Adam ruling his wife was just one of the sins that Adam would commit and one that would directly affect Eve and God pointed it out to Eve to prepare her for life outside the garden. There is no second witness needed for Adam choosing to “rule” Eve since God specifically prophesied it would happen just like Jesus prophesied that Peter would betray him.

The point that I was making was that Eve did not have a sin nature and so a claim that Eve’s actions are sinful would need a second witness to establish her sin nature. We already have three witnesses to Adam’s sin nature, but where are the witnesses to Eve’s sin nature? I think that we can agree that there is no second witness.

There is just so much to talk about with the sin nature, that I think I am going to set aside commenting on this post until I create the next one. Then I will go back and see if any questions still need answering here.

CHeryl – “Adam and Eve did not have a different nature pre-fall. However the choice to sin with one’s eyes wide open to the full knowledge of what you are doing in rebellion against God has a tragic consequence and that is a change in nature. When Adam sinned his nature changed from one capable of sin to one bent on sin with a full enslavement to sin.”

I agree. But that leaves Eve with a nature still capable outside the garden of rebellious sin. Do you agree?

gengwall,

I agree. But that leaves Eve with a nature still capable outside the garden of rebellious sin. Do you agree?

I already answered that question along with why it is highly important to know whether she did sin in this way or not. It is comment 424.

“And it’s not that Adam ‘developed’ a sin nature. His choices just made for who he was.”

But that is not what has been claimed here by Cheryl. The claim is that Adam’s sin nature is something that came into existence at the point he sinned, i.e. it did not exist prefall. Do you disagree with Cheryl here pinklight? Are you claiming that Adam had a different, additional sin “nature” before either Adam or Eve had committed any sin?

Yes, gengwall I agree with Cheryl but Adam’s nature didn’t “develope” like it was a progression. It was instant. I don’t think Cheryl has claimed that his sin nature “developed”. When Adam chose to rebel and continue as a rebel, that was it, he wasn’t going back. The text gives no indication that he repented. His choices made for who he was/became. He at one point was not a rebel, then he became one and stayed a rebel. That’s in a big way what defines Adam.

It is the same thing for satan. Before he fell his nature was good and righteous.

I was thinking about just this today to in relation to our discussion.

Okay, I’ll try to wait until the next post is up to comment!

pl – “Yes, gengwall I agree with Cheryl but Adam’s nature didn’t “develope” like it was a progression. It was instant.”

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

Cheryl – “The point that I was making was that Eve did not have a sin nature and so a claim that Eve’s actions are sinful would need a second witness to establish her sin nature.”

I see. Well, I guess that is what the other post is for.

So, we are left here then with the portrayal of the virtuous Eve/wives and the villianous Adam/husbands undenied. How unfortunate. I wonder, Cheryl, if you realize how much you play into radical feminist hands with this conclusion. The idea that males are inherently, morally flawed and that women are inherently, morally superior is one prominent feminist manifesto, especially amongst Christians. It is borderline misandrous. I suppose I will have to turn my attention now to the second post because we now have to first identify not just a sin capability in Eve but a sin propensity before we can come back and address Eve’s desire. This grows tiresome.

I submitted too soon. One thing that also should be considered. The Eve good, Adam bad scenario is exactly opposite of the hard patriarchal comp position, where Eve is the villianess with some unquenchable “desire” to usurp and control and Adam’s heroic “rule” is the godly rememdy. I find it ironic that we can rail long and hard against the impossibility of that scenario considering the garden drama that has unfolded and the very character of God, yet some feel perfectly comfortable and convinced that the exact opposite, equally unbalanced and biased reality is being proclaimed by God.

gengwall,
You said:

So, we are left here then with the portrayal of the virtuous Eve/wives and the villianous Adam/husbands undenied. How unfortunate. I wonder, Cheryl, if you realize how much you play into radical feminist hands with this conclusion. The idea that males are inherently, morally flawed and that women are inherently, morally superior is one prominent feminist manifesto, especially amongst Christians. It is borderline misandrous.

You would have a point if this is what I believed. Alas all of us are of our father Adam and there are no completely virtuous women except for Eve and no completely villainous men. Somehow I don’t think you get what I am saying. I am not saying that males are inherently morally flawed. I am saying that all of us are inherently morally flawed. But we cannot trace this back to Eve but to Adam not because Adam was a sole ruler in the world like comps make him out to be, but because he chose to sin in rebellion.

I think the problem with understanding is that you believe so strongly that the actions of Adam and Eve inherently summarize the relationships of all of adam’s children that you cannot separate Eve from your wife or me or all women. But gengwall, I can testify to you that I am not of the same “stuff” as Eve. I am not sinless and my best does not compare to her sinless nature. Also if it weren’t for Eve no woman would qualify to produce the Messiah because no woman is sinless. Only through Eve can the Messiah come and if we cannot see a difference between Eve and all of Adam’s offspring, how can we understand that?

I would really love to have this conversation transferred to the new post as I think that new people would be more likely to read the comments there than on an older post here. So if you are willing to transfer your comments over there, I will too 🙂

gengwall,
I won’t comment on your second comment until you move it over, k?

*sigh* Moving to the new post seems to be starting all over. But I will do it.

You are a good man gengwall. I respect your willingness to be flexible.

Lin,

This comment is not an issue of sin nature so I will answer it here.

Cheryl, I think this is reading into the text. God never says her turning to Adam is a good thing.

God does not comment regarding the longing that turns her to Adam whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. The only way that we can determine if it is a sin issue is to verify from the context and other testimonies about Eve that we have in the Scripture. This is why I constantly ask for a second witness to establish guilt. No second witness would be needed for good. It is only a charge of sin that needs a second witness.