Cheryl Schatz

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.