Cheryl Schatz

Lin #254,

Cheryl, I believe we tend toward error when we do not translate Teshuqa properly. I think desire is a very bad translation that leads us into error.

I think it is more of a bad understanding of the word and because of this hierarchists have found another way to denigrate the woman by making her a temptress and a snare to the man. But I think that we need to be careful that we don’t head off in the opposite direction so much that we make another bad addition to the word. We cannot add a turning away from God just by this word. We would have to have additional text to convey that meaning. So while I can accept that the word can mean a turning toward, I leave the challenge where the word must mean a turning away from. I haven’t seen it and I challenge anyone to show me the evidence.

When God brought Eve to Adam they were to meld together and he was specifically to turn towards her just as all husbands are to leave and cleave. But his turning toward her in marriage was not a turning against God. It is never an either/or situation where she can have her husband or God. Or he can have his wife or God. God always meant for them to have each other and Him.

I do not think Eve is the heroine that you seem to think she is. I believe she was deceived and remorseful.

Actually I don’t think that I ever said that Eve is the heroine. In fact it is her seed that is the ultimate victor and that is by God’s mercy. I too believe that Eve was deceived and remorseful.

I also think that when one “turns” toward something they also turn AWAY from something else.

Nope, that is not a given. To turn away from God is something that we should not read into the text because to add such a thing would be to charge Eve with additional sin. This additional sin is never put onto her account by Jesus or any of the other NT apostles let alone any of the OT prophets even though Adam is talked about in his sin in the OT.

I still find it odd that God tells Eve AFTER the fall she will turn toward Adam and you find that a good thing.

When they were both in the garden, God didn’t need to say anything. It is only when Adam has been thrown out that the issue of them being together is under discussion. Whether it is a good thing or not deals directly with whether she has a sin nature or not. If she doesn’t then there is no reason to believe that it is a sinful thing unless God says so.

I think it was a horrible thing with dire consequences.

The dire consequences comes from the man and his sin nature and not from the woman. The hierarchical view is that the Eve is to blame. God doesn’t apparently agree with this as He gives no rebuke to Eve about any additional sin.

You have been teaching it is a good thing and the way to propagate the earth. This sounds Mormonish to me for some reason.

LOL!! It isn’t like Mormonism at all. The fact is that if Eve is to have more than one child, she needs to leave the garden and be with her husband. God did not initiate a divorce between the two of them and His will was originally for them to be together and populate the earth. I don’t see where He changed that at all and although she had permission to stay, her loyalty to Adam would have been a good reason to leave.

Mormonism is about people becoming gods and living on their own planet having spirit children who worship them as gods. Not even close to having Eve leave her wonderful garden home to be with her sinful but still her one-flesh husband.

This does not just blame Eve but again, I ask, how could Adam rule over her, even physically with God’s protection? Are you claiming that God withdrew any protection from her and she had no choice even after her choice to leave the Garden?

This deals with the issue of evil. God does not necessarily step in and remove people from doing evil and sometimes the innocent suffer. The question of course is why does God allow evil? God has given us all free will and some use that free will for evil. But God has promised that all things will work together for good to them that love God and are called for His purpose. Eve is still in God’s hands even though her husband will do evil things against her.

You say my interpretation reads into the text. I believe yours does too. I fear you are seriously watering down the absolute horrors of the fall.

The horrors of the fall come directly through Adam and the serpent, not through Eve. There is nothing that I am watering down regarding the one who brought sin into the world. The fact is that Eve did not bring sin into the world and any teaching that teaches this would be adding to God’s word.

Sin has serious consequences whether one is deceived or sins willfully. The “consequences” are dire.

Yes there are still consequences whether one has been deceived or sins willfully, but God deals with each case differently. Eve has nothing cursed on her behalf but she still suffers for falling into sin. We cannot and should not diminish that. However to say that she continues to sin with a sin nature isn’t part of the “serious consequences” of her deception.

The bottomline for me is that Eve turned to Adam and away from God. This is based on the historical interpretation of Teshuqa.

There is no historical interpretation that Teshuqa means turning away from God. If you take the meaning of turning toward that fits in really well with Eve leaving but to add to the meaning something that isn’t in the text, one would have to go beyond the Scripture.

I challenge anyone to show a historical interpretation that Teshuga must mean turning away from. I have never seen it and I do not believe it exists. Bushnell’s chart does not show such an interpretation.

Many women in the comp world could take a lesson from this when they view their husbands as their spiritual leader instead of Jesus Christ.

Our sin is from our father Adam. Many Christian women must be taught not to view their husbands as their spiritual leader. But this error does not come from Eve but from the hierarchists who have tried unsuccessfully to import it into the text.