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. 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.