Cheryl Schatz

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?