Mark

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.