Mark

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.