Cheryl Schatz

gengwall,
You said:

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.

I don’t think anyone here said that it was inconsequential. I surely didn’t say that. To say that it could be neutral doesn’t mean inconsequential. However, I have come to believe that it is a positive sign of Eve’s value for her husband that remains without sin of rebelling against him or setting herself against him.

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?

I can pass the ball to someone and it can be a neutral action. However since I do not believe that Eve’s action was “against” Adam, I have come to believe that it was a natural positive action of her being a wife that was not affected by any sin of rebellion. Could it also be neutral? I cannot rule it out and whether it was neutral or positive doesn’t make a big difference to me as long as the text never says it was sinful. That would be problematic for my view.

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 think we can use these words, if they are the clear view of God towards Eve. However since God makes no claim to be judging her and finding her guilty of rebellion, I think that it would be wise not to charge Eve with sin for which God never charges her.