Gengwall

I’m doing that ‘AFLAC duck talking to Yogi Berra’ head shake* when reading Ortlund. Let me see if I get this right. On the one hand he says that Eve really didn’t sin at all, it was Adam. On the other hand he is saying that Eve did sin by usurping Adam’s headship. How can Eve sinfully usurp Adam’s headship with the sin nature he gave her when she does it before he commits his sin? Arrrggghhh! Am I properly interpreting Ortlund’s chicken and egg paradox or have I shaken my head too much to grasp this?

*The reference is to a commercial where the AFLAC duck listens in on a conversation with Yogi Berra, who, for those who are not sports literate, has spoken some classically insane lines like “cash is as good as money”. It is a very funny commercial. For the uninformed – youtube it.