“. . . and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16)

[Dawn Davidson]

What does it mean that the husband “shall rule over thee” (the wife) within the context of the garden story?

Yet, even God cannot command “desire.” If He could or was willing to do so, surely as Christians we know he would command full acceptance by all of Christ as Lord and Savior. Yet even in the face of eternal damnation He does not. Further, to desire is an emotion. The word “desire” is defined in the Hebrew as “longing” or even “stretching out” after a thing or person. It is based upon a root word meaning to “overflow” as in water. It is a place of mind which is not (within its inception) achievable based upon command.

In fact to rightly interpret this area of scripture one must first hearken back to Genesis 2:24. It is here where we learn what the God-desired actions of a husband should be toward his wife; that he is to “cleave unto his wife” so that the two may be of one flesh. The word “cleave” is defined in the Hebrew as to “cling,” to “adhere,” to “follow close (hard after), be joined (together).”

Please note, this is expressed as an action word, a verb and is totally and completely obtainable based upon command and obedience. That is, it is God’s desire in marriage that a man should cling to and follow close and even hard after (underline mine) his wife. Of course within the context of the garden story, it was Eve who alone had regard for making right confession before God so it is totally appropriate that Adam was to cleave and to follow hard after her. However, that is an aside to the point I am seeking to make at this time.

So we know right now that “desire” is an emotion not capable of achieving upon command and yet to “cleave” is an action totally capable of achieving upon command. That a husband shall “rule over” a female must be defined within the right context of the garden story. That is, given the unrighteous state of the man Adam, that he denied Eve her God-given name and therefore also identity (as the two are related) and that he lied about his own name to her, and that he saw fit to allow her to even die by not interfering and correcting her knowledge regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve understandably no longer desired to be with Adam. So when God says that the man shall nevertheless “rule over” her it is a prophetic statement by God completely rooted in affairs of the heart within the confines of a marriage. God was in fact telling Eve that she would one day heal and desire to have this man again. Period, nothing more nothing less.

Specifically, as a now punished but changing Adam began to obediently “cleave” to his wife as a “husband” (and please note, according the Hebrew, Adam is never defined in name as acting as a husband to Eve, he is only defined as a “man” in the name of “Adam.”) the very heart of Eve would itself begin to change and instead of now hating or at least not desiring this man, she would begin to forgive and open her heart to receive him once more. Adam had to be obedient unto God first as a husband (that is “cleave”) before the female Eve could allow her emotions (hence “desire”) for this now cleaving man to “rule over” her earlier desire to simply hate or not forgive him. It was a twin deliverance rooted in the heart for both of them.

Therefore it is once again proven that God did not establish and elevate the place of a man even as a husband to “rule over” the place and position of a female even as a wife.

Please respond about how you discern this directly based upon scripture and not tradition and unsupported rhetorical statements. I realize what I have is not familiar but we can still be civil. If you don’t agree then credibly tell me why and what you specifically don’t agree with. I, like Eve, am personally also “longing” to hear your answers. <:

My scripture references to the Hebrew are from the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

I agree.....

[Dawn Davidson]

What say you then of the Hebrew? Do you accept or reject it in the garden word? And if you reject the Hebrew of the garden word then say you reject the Hebrew of the garden word because the problem as I see it, has nothing to do with me. I employ full use of the Hebrew in the garden. So specifically where do we differ according to the Hebrew? In definition of Adam's name? I use The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, feel free to check my source. What do you use and what definition for an "Adam" do you have?

I will also say, what was true for an Adam, was true for an Adam and any man or woman also choosing to reject God and instead walk as an Adam. What was true for an Adam is not, and never has been true for all men. We are talking about the example of a person, in terms of proven acts of righteousness in God (or not), who happened to be a man in the garden. And yet even I can act as a hypocrite as did Adam, and while I am a hypocrite you may choose to make righteous confession as did a garden Eve. God is no respecter of persons (only we do that), he is (and was) looking for proven works in his righteousness.

Again I will say, that we need to remain civil and constructive to the conversation at hand, character assaults yield nothing. And the Holy Ghost leads me to truth and even truth as recorded in the Hebrew. That you disagree is fine (this is a discussion) but state your case according to quoted word and as rooted in the Hebrew.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

I read and considered what you said here, and I STRONGLY disagree with you. There was no evidence showing Adam to be weak or a hypocrite at all. You make men out to be fake leaders, starting with Adam. Thats a shame and a scandalous move..

[Dawn Davidson]

Then you reject the Hebrew? I only deal with the Hebrew and the actual word and I thank you for not making this personal, it is a discussion rooted in the Hebrew about this word.

So when you say there is no evidence, tell me specifically what posted here by me you are rejecting and we can discuss it. That you reject it is fine, that is the entire point of having a discussion, to get to the facts at hand. I certainly don't think all men are "fake" leaders, I think that the garden work of an Adam speaks to the reality that was true for Adam but that his life, though we are to learn from it, speaks nothing over the effective leadership of righteous men. In fact, Adam did see his change only it did not occur in the garden and not (at least I believe) until Genesis 5:3, after the death of Abel and prior the birth of Seth.

Whether we agree or not, let's work to keep our conversations constructive. Simply state what you believe in word without character assault.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Lemme take a wack at this blog! First, I would like to address something (if no one else addressed it before). GOD did not "command" this to happen, nor anything else within this chapter concerning the curse of man. GOD told them what they brought upon themselves, which was a curse. It was the LORD who cut them clothing of animals' skin to cover them in the midst of their dilemma. Many use this as a scripture to justify why women shouldn't preach, but forget that we were redeemed from the curse of the law. Women being ruled over was part of the curse that was eradicated. Before hand, women were to rule side-by-side as equals with the husband, sharing the same power and rights. After this curse, they were treated as property.

-a woman caught in adultery was used as bait for JESUS' downfall, never mentioning the male caught as well
-Lot's daughters were offered as bait so men (angels) wouldn't be raped
-a Levite did the same as Lot with his concubine for an old (Judges 19)

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Greene,

Thank you for you for posting (and I love your energy!). You said: "GOD did not "command" this to happen, nor anything else within this chapter concerning the curse of man. GOD told them what they brought upon themselves, which was a curse."

I think what you are referring to is out of context in relation to how it was said. What I stated is that God cannot command “desire” from anyone (but I was speaking directly about the female) as he made us with free-will and gives us choice. We were, as we are, dealing with Genesis 3:16 when it says “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over you.” I do agree that God was certainly telling the female (as he was not speaking to an Adam in this verse) what would be the effects of the fall in relation to what would now never be the full completion of her purpose and identity as a mother in the eternal given the present reality of death in the natural. And also prophetically saying to her as wife that not only would she heal and “desire” Adam again, but that he, in enabling her to heal (by now obediently "cleaving"), would see a change for himself and even a change which would cause the female to desire him, giving him “rule” once again “over” her heart. As I see it, Genesis 3:16 has nothing to do with matters of control over the female, but only what were the issues requiring deliverance as rooted in matters of the heart for both the female and the man.

You said: "It was the LORD who cut them clothing of animals' skin to cover them in the midst of their dilemma." You are referring to Genesis 3:21 and I must ask, do we rightly interpret this verse, it says:

“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.” My question is, what does the word “also” here effectively mean? That is, saying “Unto Adam also” makes this man secondary (in reference to this work of God) to the primary which is his wife who proves to be the actual subject of the verse. She is actually the one to whom God was giving directly to (in covering) and even because of. I belief God is recognizing (as even we should) that the confession of the female in Genesis 3:13 meant something to him. How could a righteous God move to cover un-confessed sin? So we know this was not due to an Adam who did far more than just eat fruit in the garden (Genesis 3:12), which is why he was even punished (his work in Genesis 2:23 as we have discussed here is an example). But an honored Eve alone made full confession in Genesis 3:13 and just like God proved able to (alone) use her works in Genesis 3:15 in the face of the serpent (and not an Adam), in Genesis 3:21 it is an Adam again benefiting from the effects of her just confession before God but it is she alone who proved, and even as it is stated here in Genesis 3:21 (I believe), to do well. Let me know your thoughts on this.

We certainly agree about equality in creation of the female. The issue with Lot’s wife and daughters (both left alive and those dead) have so many unexplored areas pertaining to the female (and an extended teaching on Lot himself and the state of men in relation to the female), it excites me just to hear you raise the subject!

Many blessings to you, hope to hear from you again soon.

[Dawn Davidson]

Just to be clear, it was never my intent to say that God created the humans imperfectly, I have said again and again that God created them in a perfect state, and even as you say Brother Watson, due to free-will they were not able to maintain that perfect state before God and but for free-will as given by God they would be as robots.

An innocent stage they may have been in but God still expected obedience to his word which is why he punished for any lack in confession and including the silence of Adam in Genesis 3:1-6.

But Brother Watson, you have made me curious. If they were in a state of innocence and this is even a state taught and acknowledged by the Church then, one why did God punish Adam, and why even so harshly? Two, why was the female so effectively repressed as a result of it? How is it that they, the Church, did not apply the import, meaning, impact of this particular dispensation to her reality as well?

[newview]

...If they were in a state of innocence and this is even a state taught and acknowledged by the Church then, one why did God punish Adam, and why even so harshly?...

Because Adam was her head.
The woman was made FOR Adam - the man.

[newview]

I see what you are saying Bro Watson. But wasnt she made for him NOT him for her.

[Dawn Davidson]

Sister Jenine,

I know this appears long, but only because I quote you and everything that you wrote deserves address.

You wrote: “One of the things that I can't accept is that Adam who was created by God and created perfect did something as imperfect toward Eve before the fall.” Yet all Adam confessed to in Genesis 3:12 was eating fruit, so if Adam did not commit any other sin in the garden we have a problem with God because he was punished. God does not punish righteousness behavior. Eve confessed. So the teaching, in my opinion, that given the greater authority of Adam he was punished not for his own sins but for the sins of Eve cannot be theologically correct either. It is also not consistent with a God who alone exalted her in name and title and not an Adam, and can you then identify what sin she committed in the garden other than eating the fruit, a sin that she herself confessed to? And if Adam had to pay for her sin despite her fully honored confession, what are we now saying about the righteousness of God?

You wrote: “Other than your usage of words, there is no other proof that Adam was inapproriate with his dealings toward Eve.” Where was Adam from Genesis 3:1 to 3:6? And if Adam was not present and did not make a free-will decision (having even more correct information about the fruit than did Eve) why is it that God exalted an Eve in name/title and even honored her confession saying only “The serpent beguiled me and I did eat?” Why would God do this with a female proving to have deceived the man (who was not also present according to this thought) into eating the fruit and yet did not confess it? How sinister! She even more so than an Adam, should have been harshly punished. But God honored her. Is God a fool?

You wrote: “That doesn't sit well with me because God created him in his image and he said everything he created was good.” And it was good even as a God who alone is Perfect created but I don’t think we can overlook that God also put confession in place at this time as well. Without the law of confession, when sin occurred (as even God knew it would given free-will) all would not be regarded as good for either the human, now surely bound for destruction with no way out, or the demonstrated ability, wisdom, and provision of the God who created them.

You wrote: “If you are incorrect with your application it would throw your entire theory off. You said that you believe that Adam was disobedient before he ate of the fruit. However we never see God responding or correctiing his disobedience. Should we blame God for this? But we do see God responding and correcting them both for the disobedience that is actually noted in the bible.” Actually, what I have written is positioned first upon the fact the an Adam who confessed to eating the fruit was still punished by God, why? I point to areas in word where word itself seems to confirm this man’s disobedience. I think better of that then believing, or even doubting whether or not God punished a rightly confessed man, and even with the death penalty. As I said before (as I believe) an honored Eve independently of Adam stood upright based upon her confession in Genesis 3:13.

I agree that God was not prompted to return to the garden until the fruit was actually eaten as that was the actual command of God. But what does God say to the man in Genesis 2:17 but: “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life…”

Adam confessed to eating the fruit so the real issue was that he “hearkened unto the voice” of his wife, but when we consider also that Adam was present with the female at the time of her fall (and subsequently his own), knowing that the fruit could be touched only not eaten yet saying nothing, and elected to remain a man of no interference, exactly what was it that Adam “hearkened unto” but the still living voice of his wife? He knew the command of God was death. And given all that proves to be at the root of why Adam actually saw fit to hearken unto the voice of his wife we are looking at a scope of sin far larger than the mere fact that he hearkened (hearkening by the way which was not a sin, as Adam even should have hearkened, that is responded, unto her enough to have children). It was only why he hearkened here that made the difference. Here we have adultery in the manipulation of God’s word, deceit, lying, and a murderous spirit. Unless you can prove that Adam was not there during the time of her fall, how do you get around that? And do we believe that God would set precedent in the garden, even speaking against his own righteousness, by not judging sin? I hear you about a state of immaturity, but I received my biggest judgment from God in a complete state of spiritual immaturity, I was in fact barely a day old in the church. I cannot accept that God would comprise his righteousness, I don’t find that to be theologically sound.

About Genesis 2:23, had Adam not already been given his name as an Adam, I would agree with you. But he knew his name and even answered to it in Genesis 3:9. I believe also that Adam proves his true mind-set in Genesis 3:1-6 as previously discussed.

You wrote in comment about what I wrote: “"Mankind proved their imperfection because mankind proved an ability to sin." This contradicts the belief that God created them perfect. But I do understand that you believe that God created him perfect but somewhere down the line, he became imperfect which took place before he ate of the fruit. In my opinion this is erroneous. In my opinion you need to rethink this belief. The reason why I suggest this is because what you believe influences your thoughts, your opinion, your perception and your actions.” How then is it ever not the fault of God that the humans fell into sin? If the exercise of free-will played no part, then God is the only reason why, according to his design, that they sinned. This in turn makes God imperfect, a liar, and therefore not also God. I think it important to prove God righteous above all else because we first believe who God says he is to us. So if the word is lining up in a way failing to prove God as righteous (as I contend the traditional word of the garden does) something is not right. We need to take a second look. To be specific, I said that God created them in a perfect state and only due to their own free-will actions did they step out of it. God could have chosen not to give us free-will, but in his goodness he provided it. Unless we are to believe we too are to be gods, then how should or can we ever have an expectation of being perfect before him but for the Precious Blood of Jesus? Only God is God, regardless of what or how he creates nothing and no one will ever exist in a perfect state such as he, save Jesus Christ on earth himself. Perhaps that is one of the very few things He cannot do, that is if he is not willing to make himself into a liar, as even God says he alone is Perfect. I certainly don’t have all of the answers but that God alone is perfect is an area in God that we simply have to submit to, it is not an area for comprise or detraction. It is critical to admit fault on the side of mankind given who God says he is. He is our standard, and he alone is Perfect. Yes God created perfectly in making, even designing the man and the woman, but given free-will and a human mind incapable of thinking of a level as does an Almighty and All-knowing God, they would not be able to sustain a perfect state and that they could not was no fault of God. He mercifully and graciously made provision for sin by giving us confession. To think otherwise, I believe, is to try to put ourselves on the level even of God, we are not and we were not even in a glorified state.

You wrote: “I guess a good question to ask is how does this belief influence you? Does this view affect your over all opinion of men? Do you think that you are negatively influenced in any way by your garden view? These are rhetorical question.” I think that if I were somehow creating the fact that Adam received a name not speaking well of him and yet Eve did, if it was my word that said Adam was punished and yet an honored Eve was not…you get my point, then yes, I would say that I clearly have issues in this word and with men. But the point is, this isn’t my word, I did not write the Hebrew, I did not write the garden word. It even precedes me throughout the ages, it was itself even written by the hand of a man! What am I doing wrong? Am I (and I am asking in all sincerity) supposed to pretend that in full it does not exist? That’s righteous, to cherry-pick the word and then allow it, even facilitate it, in negatively affecting the lives of countless people?

I don’t have issues with men, it makes it so easy to pretend I do, quick route to marginalize the message, but I don’t. I love men, I just happen to love God more and God is truth. We cannot afford to speak in empty platitudes about Scripture, saying that it is holy and that God is his word, when it indeed is made dispensable the moment a mere man (and I mean “man” as in mankind) is offended. Since when has the word not offended? Christ was put to death by Crucifixion and how many of God’s prophets died? Yet God had a purpose in giving it. I won’t snuff the word out.

You wrote: “I would like to add: What people don't understand is: How much time passed between creating mankind and the fall? Was it 100 yrs, a 1000 yrs, 10,000 or perhaps 10 yrs? When God created a fully grown man in the flesh, how mature was he in spirit? Had Adam walked with God long enough to grow to a place where he could absolutely know the consequences of his choices? I believe what God fore saw was this. With the ability to choose comes the ability to make the wrong choice.” Not sure I understand your point here in saying that you believe “what God fore saw was this.” Do you mean then this would be His basis for suspending his own righteous character and turning a blind eye to all other sin in the garden other than the actual eating of fruit? Further, we are held accountable to the word of God from day one. We also tend to learn by way of experience. Pretty big blunder for the first couple but then again they were just that, the first and having a lot more at stake. I strongly agree: “With the ability to choose comes the ability to make the wrong choice” but then again based upon the word and experience I have, I think God would say, the choices we make should always be for him. Again, like I said in an earlier post, the critical issue was not that Adam sinned, or even how many times he sinned, the issue was a lack of making full confession of whatever were his sins. If he made right confession, explain to me how he would have been punished if God is also holy? And then what would be our own hope? Confession of sin means a lot in the world of a Christian.

You wrote: “Satan never approached Adam. He approached Eve. I don't know all the reasons why he chose to approach Eve.” I think the serpent chose to approach an Eve and not an Adam because he did not have to approach a man who even God called an Adam. What would be the point, he already knew at some point he would clearly have him and even by the man’s own choosing, he did not need to interfere. We don’t agree about Genesis 2:23 but I think the serpent knows then and there also that he has him. But what about the person called an Eve with name meaning “life-giver,“ she would serve as an even better indictment against God and victory over God. The argument can be made that perhaps the serpent had no idea the female was to be called “Eve” as it had yet to even be spoken, but Adam did call her “Woman.” Whether he wrongly applied a gender term as a name aside, it is a term whole in definition (unlike the two separate definitions we have for the word “man” given that the man qualified only as an Adam before God and not the man of 376) speaking well of the female, that she is mighty, great, of high degree, without adultery, a champion, and a wife. This is what God always had to say according to the Hebrew about the female as a “woman.” The serpent surely heard that. Please remember too, it was Jesus who the devil also sought to tempt. So what does it mean about an Adam, that it wasn’t him also that the serpent selected? In short too, just to add to the set-up, the serpent also knew that Adam lied to her, she was easy prey. For some reason also the serpent did not even expect an Adam (or at least considered it unlikely) to speak up with the truth during his temptation of the female, why would the serpent otherwise have chosen to do so before him? He seems to be taking something for granted.

As an aside: Eve was even younger than was an Adam without the added benefit of extended time with the Lord, and yet she fallen knew how to get up making right confession. So maturity no, but obediently exalting and choosing the way of God, yes.

We can I hope agree that God hates pride. What love am I ultimately showing my brothers, if seeing the truth of this word and then like an Adam remaining silent, content only to watch their demise? I will not play a part in exalting pride and hypocrisy, I don’t think there is any place in Christian love that should. We are quick to run a gay person out of the church and yet we are willing to bend and suppress a word inspired and purposed by God in the garden even for the deliverance of men because the man is offended. From day one God caused me to have a mature walk before him in terms of learning to eat the meat that is on the table. It is one thing if the Hebrew is wrong, even wrongly attempted, but quite another if only covered up.

[Dawn Davidson]

Jenine,

Adam made confession of eating the fruit in Genesis 3:12, so what he should have suffered were consequences to the present reality of sin but not punishment. Punishment by God in the earth is designed to bring about repentance. What did Adam still need to repent for? And if nothing what does that say about the God who punished him?

I don’t accept the teaching that Adam paid for the sins of an Eve all I said is that it is a teaching that is out there, I disputed it in my writings.

The name of “Eve” as “life-giver” and the earned title by the female as “mother of all living” is a demonstrated show of having exalted righteousness in God in the garden. It does not mean that because Eve earned her name from God as an “Eve,” or that she earned title as “mother of all living” that she was created to be better than Adam, or even that she as a person was better than Adam, they were most certainly equal in creation, but only that she, as a free-willed person, ultimately made just and better choices in the garden than did Adam, yet another free-willed person. Adam did not earn a better name in the garden than an "Adam" and he earned no title speaking to life (And this all from the foreknowledge and judgment of God, it is he who felt fit to call the man an Adam). Eve suffered consequences to sin not punishment. Within the context of the garden the Hebrew in 3:16 makes it clear.

When saying this: "Where was Adam from Genesis 3:1 to 3:6? And if Adam was not present" I was seeking to establish that Adam was present (as much of my argument is based on it) and I believe the full statement makes that clear but if not I apologize.

If Adam had no concept of death, or at least that it was a very undesirable state (as God even expressed it to be), then the very words of God in Genesis 2:17 “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” were spoken in vain by God and equates to cruelty because God surely punished him. And whether Adam was aware of the spirit he was walking in or not does not change what it was.

“God doesn't need us to be who he is but we need him to be who we are.” - Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I don’t think you wrote what you actually believe here as our goal is not to be God, recognizing that only he can be, and God is certainly not on our level, he feels our pains, knows our joys, but is always himself God. We were created to be His reflection and not him ours.

Jesus was a man without sin, yes he learned of God but not by way of error. My point about perfection to you was only made because you were still questioning, how, if Adam was created perfectly by God and in a perfect state, he could commit sin? Where did it come from? And it is a good question, I said it then. But in an effort to move on, (as we have no answer to it) the point I felt led to emphasize was that whatever happened it was not the fault of God. But now it sounds like we in fact agree. I still have problems with the idea that he was immature, not that he wasn’t’, but his immaturity still did not stop God from punishing him. There is a message I believe, to us in that from God (which is why I used the example even of my own experience). I agree with Brother Watson that the dispensation of innocence ended after the fall, but whether what happened took place during the dispensation of innocence or not, an Adam who confessed to eating the fruit was still punished by God so there must be more to this - he clearly still had a price to pay (or God is made unjust).

I don’t know what to say in response to the idea that Eve did not sin. She made confession to a question asked of her by God in Genesis 3:13. So again, unless a perfect God of purpose posed the question in vain, what she did in the garden mattered also. He asked her for a reason. The word in the garden applied to her as well. God gave the Ten Commandments to Moses not to me but they apply to me as well. We can't on the one hand call her equal but on the other say she was not even worth the judgment of God.

Regarding your rhetorical question, it wasn’t so rhetorical (the mere suggestion on a public page does enough damage). But no worries, I’m used to hearing it now and did not mind giving you my answer.

Although it is time to wind this down, I hope we will maintain our fellowship here. We are both zealous for Christ and we have a lot of passion. I would like to just agree to disagree and move on.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Ok, I am late getting in on this post, and I have to be truthful, the replies are extremely long so I am not going to try and keep track. But, I do want to address one statement that was made at the beginning:

So we know right now that “desire” is an emotion not capable of achieving upon command and yet to “cleave” is an action totally capable of achieving upon command. That a husband shall “rule over” a female must be defined within the right context of the garden story. That is, given the unrighteous state of the man Adam, that he denied Eve her God-given name and therefore also identity (as the two are related) and that he lied about his own name to her, and that he saw fit to allow her to even die by not interfering and correcting her knowledge regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve understandably no longer desired to be with Adam. So when God says that the man shall nevertheless “rule over” her it is a prophetic statement by God completely rooted in affairs of the heart within the confines of a marriage. God was in fact telling Eve that she would one day heal and desire to have this man again. Period, nothing more nothing less.

Most of the above statement has already been addressed; however, I feel compelled to address the part where you said "Adam saw fit to allow her to even die by not interfering and correcting her knowledge regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Even understandably no longer desired to be with Adam."

Eve was given the commandment by her husband to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, but SHE chose to listen to the wiles of Satan. And, as we all know, if you allow yourself to engage in a long conversation with Satan, you will fall.

Allow me to bring it closer to home, suppose your husband instructed you to not open a certain closet door in your home because it was packed to the brim and in doing so, you could get seriously hurt from objects falling out of the closet; and he goes outside to mow the lawn. After a short while, you get this notion out of curiosity to open the closet door by making it seem like you really needed something that you felt was actually in the closet. So, you choose to disobey your husband and open the closet door and a stack of books fall on your head and as a sad result you suffered a concussion. Who is at fault for your injury?

You could say it was your husband for packing the closet so tight, and you would probably be right. But the point is, he not only instructed you to not open the closet door but he clearly warned you what would probably happen if you did. Satan dropped a disobedient notion in your mind and you entertained it and as a result, you paid a price for your disobedience. Now, would you say that because your husband did not stick around to watch you your every move that he allowed you to disobey his instruction and therefore, you have now lost interest in your husband as well?

You see Sis. Davidson, you tend to speak about Eve's equality with Adam, yet you want to make Adam at fault for her disobedient act. One minute she's equal to Adam and the next minute she's subservient. Adam spoke the commandment to her as it was given to him. So, as an "equal" she should have been smart enough to obey the Word. And to prove my point even further, as she continued to engage in the conversation with Satan, she was so taken by Satan's smooth talk until she couldn't even repeat the commandment correctly:

Genesis 3:2-3 "And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden. But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die."

God never said anything about not touching the tree. That shows you how persuaded she became as a result of entertaining the enemy in conversation. She clearly stepped out of her lane of equality and covering because now she was being persuaded with the lust of her flesh.

I'm going to stop right there because the remainder of your post has been addressed by others. I just wanted to share my perspective in this one area.