You said:

Both Adam and Eve attempt to pin the blame for their actions on another yet both are finally held responsible for their disobedience in eating the fruit. A lot of speculation about precisely how the man or woman sinned that expounds on gender roles seems wasteful to me because it finally is locating sin in some place other than ignoring God’s warning about eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

While it is true that both Adam and Eve are ultimately responsible for the sin of eating the fruit, and both of them will die from eating that fruit, they are not held equally responsible. Only the man’s actions brings a curse. Eve’s does not.

Paul picks up on this and deals with the issue around the intent of one’s heart. Eve was “led astray”:

2 Cor 11:3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

..while Adam’s action was treacherous (Hosea 6:7)

Paul said that he received mercy, not because he did his bad deeds in full knowledge of what he was doing, but he received mercy because he did his actions ignorantly and in unbelief. This goes beyond merely locating sin by the action. It also takes into consideration also the condition of the heart. Of course only God is capable of this kind of judging as He alone is God who sees the heart.

1 Tim 1:13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;

The usual explanation for the woman’s usurping role is in “because you have listened to your wife”. I find this argument dubious simply because the emphasis is not on Eve usurping her role but Adam heeding the voice of his wife rather than God’s warning. Both Adam and Eve attempt to pin the blame for their actions on another yet both are finally held responsible for their disobedience in eating the fruit. A lot of speculation about precisely how the man or woman sinned that expounds on gender roles seems wasteful to me because it finally is locating sin in some place other than ignoring God’s warning about eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Now I have heard men try to argue that the sin nature is not passed through the woman and in response to that I proposed the following scenario: human cloning is successfully obtained and a clone of a woman is developed who then undergoes a sex change. Does this man then have grounds to claim he was born without a sin nature? Would anyone buy that or would that seem like special pleading? Since Luke tells us Jesus was born of a virgin hamartology was concerned with explaining how and why it was necessary beyond the mystery of the incarnation (i.e. why for our sake it was necessary).

I think federal headship is being conscripted by complementarians to solve a social and political problem the doctrine was never even designed to address. If the doctrine helps you understand why salvation is through Christ alone then you’re understanding the doctrine properly. If you employ the doctrine to establish a social or political agenda in the here and now then it smells like a bad kind of special pleading.

Sorry if this is too long but the application of imputation in theology has been a hobby of mine and I have been disappointed by how doctrines related to it have been appropriated to deal with things it wasn’t designed to deal with.

Why didn’t her eyes open up first when she ate the fruit, was it because thay ate just seconds apart..then they both opened…please explain. Thanks Cheryl

It is correct that Eve does not pass on the sin nature. The sin nature comes from rebellion and deliberate sin and Eve did not have that. The consequences of her actions were what God told both of them - that they would die. But God further added to the consequences by pronouncing a curse on the earth because of Adam’s deliberate, willful, rebellious and treacherous act. No curse was placed on anything because of Eve having been deceived and so her seed will inherit no rebellion that is in all of us who are descendants of Adam.

We know Adam is going to act out his sin nature by ruling over Eve.The bigger picking on the smaller.

But Eve sinned (Was Tricked), thus Sin & Death from eating from the tree of evil fell on “herself” “alone” and she too has a sin nature, right? She can’t pass the sin nature on is that correct, that comes from Adam? In other words Her Sin was just on Her, it affected Just Herself, where as Adam’s Sin affected himself and any Children (Us) that may come from him. Is this correct?

It would also be helpful for you to know that some take a bad interpretation seriously and the comments may reflect some of that. I try very hard not to moderate the comments here as that would come across as overly controlling. However I still appreciate your comments and thank you for your admiration of your Dad. I am sure that he has the same respect for you too.

Blessings,
Cheryl

Biblical interpretation aside, it might help to know that my parents (Ray Ortlund is my dad) have the healthiest, most loving marriage I have ever observed up close. I have the utmost respect and admiration for my dad.

Dane Ortlund

I am bigger than you and I can read the Bible so I get privileges!

How come some object? They are just being rebels!