Jane Mcnally Was a Missionary for Forty Years in India and the Founder and Editor of Light

Jane McNally was a missionary for forty years in India and the founder and editor of Light of Life magazine. She is the author of Abuse of Christian Women in India, published with a response by Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, Remedy in 12 Biblical Studies (ISPCK, Delhi, 1999), and updated and recently published in the U.S. by William Carey Library, Pasadena. In 1944, she wroteThe Place of Women in the New Testament Church for her master's thesis at Wheaton College.

Ms. McNally's most recent writing is "Another Look at Eve," written for Dharma Deepika, Chennai, India. The article appeared also in Light of Life, Mumbai and in Priscilla Papers, Winter 2001. It is used here with the permission of the author.

Another Look at Eve

What does the Bible really say about her participation in the Fall

by Jane McNally

Traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations of the early chapters of Genesis have led to the heaviest blame often falling on Eve for the entrance of sin and death into the world. I have encountered in most surprising places – from a godly Indian pastor and from a writer in a leading Christian magazine – the almost word-for-word affirmation of Sirach 25:24 (about 250 B.C.) in the Apocrypha: “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die.” Faulty interpretations of many Bible texts foster the low status, oppression, and abuse of women the world around, which is one of our greatest social evils.

John A. Phillips, in his book EVE, The History of an Idea, notes that
Modern scholarship regards most earlier interpretations of Eve as prime examples of eisegesis – that is, the reading into the text of the writer’s own ideas and prejudices. The real Eve is the Eve of Genesis, and a faithful exegesis of the scriptural story … will disclose her. The history of the interpretation of Eve, modern scholars hold, is largely a history of misunderstanding and malice … and has little to offer in understanding the Eve of Genesis. 1

Phillips’ book details a steady flow, for long centuries, of the maligning of Eve, including the imparting to her of attributes of the Greek Pandora myth, in which a young woman’s curiosity led her to open a box which released all evils into the world.

The witness of Scripture

What does the Bible really say about Eve’s participation in the Fall? In close reading and rereading of the Genesis account I have noted as never before the difference in God’s dealing with Adam and with Eve. This, plus the related New Testament passages and Job 31:33, has given sharp focus to the whole account of the Fall.

In Genesis 1:1 God describes his Creation as “very good.” Both man and woman were created in God’s image and were together instructed to multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over all living creatures.

Adam was to tend the Garden of Eden which had been prepared for him, and to keep or guard it (Heb. shamar, the same word as in Genesis 3:24 where cherubim and a sword guarded the way to the tree of life). This implies that some evil power was seeking to enter the Garden.

God told Adam that he could eat fruit of every tree except the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was in the center of the Garden. The tree was there to remind him that God the Creator was sovereign, and that he, Adam, was God’s creation, dependent upon and answerable to God. If he were to eat of the forbidden tree, the disobedience, an act of independence from God, would separate him from God, the source of life, and he would die. All this was not spelled out, for obedience was not to be through compulsion or fear, but by voluntary choice, responding to the Creator’s love and goodness.

Adam had the pleasant occupation of looking after a beautiful garden-park with animals to enjoy and train if he wished, and he had fellowship with God. Yet God saw that it was “not good” for him to be alone, and formed woman from his side, drawn out and molded from the same physical and soul-stuff as he – a mate, his equal partner and counterpart, of the same essence, but different.

Commenting on the statement that God found Adam’s condition now to be not good, Katharine Bushnell says we are not told what were the signs of this change, “… but the following points should be weighed: (1) Adam was offered freely the tree of life (2:16) but did not eat of it (2:22); (2) was made keeper as well as dresser of the Garden (2:15), but Satan later enters it.…” She quotes early commentators:

William Law, a learned theologian and one of the most accomplished writers of his day, declares: “Adam had lost much of his perfection before his Eve was taken out of him, which was done to prevent worse effects of his fall and to prepare a means of his recovery when his fall should become total.…” The German philosopher Jacob Behman taught that “There must have been something in the nature of a stumble, if not an actual fall, while Adam was yet alone in Eden.…” [John Wesley had all of his Methodist preachers study Behman’s writings.]

Eve was created [Bushnell: he should have said elaborated,] to help Adam to recover himself, and to establish himself in paradise, and in the favor, fellowship and service of his Maker. 2

Adam’s devious reply to God’s questioning after the pair had eaten the forbidden fruit shows that something had gone wrong. Further evidence of the beginning of a fall was in his not protecting his young wife from the temptation she was going to face. He was a silent observer.

The Genesis account does not say what Adam may have been told about the tree of life, which also was in the center of the Garden (2:9). But for it to have come down to us in Scripture, he must have known of it and spoken of it to his progeny. Both trees are symbolic, the tree of life symbolic of commitment to obedience and dependence upon the sovereign Creator-God, the source and giver of life.

The woman was to be a strong help, Adam’s female counterpart. Gilbert Bilizekian notes that the word helper (Heb. ezer) “is used in the Bible as a designation for someone who rescues or saves from difficult situations rather than for a subordinate assistant, which the word suggests in English.” 3Nineteen of the twenty-one usages in the O.T. concern God as help or helper.

Satan, who as a mighty angel had thrown off dependence upon God (cf. Isa.14:12–15), used the serpent as a tool; hence, the creature’s craftiness and subtlety. The evil one had slipped into the Garden. The serpent’s appearance must have been more pleasing to the woman before God’s curse was pronounced upon it. Paul could have had this in mind when he wrote: “Even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14).

The serpent addressed the woman, possibly because she was the newcomer, not yet in existence when God commanded Adam concerning the tree. Another view is that she was seen as the stronger of the two, and if she fell, Adam would fall too. Using the plural ‘you’ (‘ye’ in the King James Version of 3:1, 4-5) because the man was “with her” and could be targeted also (v. 6), the tempter asked: “Has God [really] said ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” The woman responded directly that they could eat of every tree except one designated one, adding emphasis given to her by Adam, or her own imagination, “… neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.”

The tempter then made the attack. “Ye shall not surely die: for God knows that in the day ye eat thereof your eyes shall be opened and ye shall be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:4–5).

Now, was the woman to believe Adam’s report or to believe the clever serpent? The fruit looked good, and to gain wisdom also was good. Satan was projecting on her his own fantasy, “to be like God,” which had caused his downfall (cf. Isa.14:12 ff). The account does not indicate whether the woman shared that particular wish. She was a recent arrival with much yet to see and learn, and did not necessarily buy the tempter’s entire package. The account reads: “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate” (v. 6).

Eve felt free to reply to the tempter without consulting her husband. There was no hierarchy, no male dominance, before the fall. It would, however, have been good for the two to have talked together about the matter. The oneness which had been God’s intention for them was not yet their experience. Apparently this relationship also would be achieved by right choices in a growing fellowship and love.

Adam’s compliance

The man’s silence throughout signifies assent. There is no suggestion that the woman persuaded him or that persuasion would have been necessary. Why was he so compliant? Why did he not intervene, rebuke the tempter, and order him out of the Garden?

Adam had been in the Garden longer, had rich experiences with God, but apparently must have wondered about that one tree and was already open to doubt and temptation. The forbidden tree was tantalizing. Bilizekian says Adam let his wife act out his own fantasy for autonomy, self-determination, hiding behind her skirts, as it were. He knew his young wife had extenuating circumstances, but he had none. 4 Besides, she apparently had not died from the fruit!

Although unaware, both died spiritually. They now felt shame for their nakedness, and made aprons of fig leaves to cover themselves. Then, hearing the approach of God in the cool of the evening, they hid among the trees.

God called to the man and questioned him, using the singular pronoun ‘thou’ (3:9 KJV). Adam replied, “I heard … I was afraid, because I was naked … I hid myself.” God asked, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man knew he had disobeyed, but made a circuitous confession: “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree and I ate” (v.12) [emphasis added]. He dared to involve God. No reference to the deceiver who was behind it all, who had gotten past him into the Garden and may have remained nearby, gloating. Whether intentionally or not, Adam shielded the tempter.

Then God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” She answered forthrightly: not, “The serpent that you created deceived me, and my husband did not stop me.” Not, “The Devil made me do it.” She gave the facts: “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” She transgressed, having known of the prohibition, but was not willfully disobedient. She had believed the deceiver. Now recognizing the lie, she denounced and opposed him.

Marvin R. Vincent, in his Word Studies in the Greek New Testament, because of prefixes on the verbs translates 1 Timothy 2:14 as: “Eve, being thoroughly deceived, fell into transgression.” Weymouth’s New Testament reads: “The woman was thoroughly deceived, and so became involved.”

The woman and the man both transgressed, both sinned. But God did not deal with both of them the same because there was premeditation in the action of the man, who had longer experience with God and had heard the prohibition firsthand. With no hesitation or objection, he had accepted the fruit and eaten it.

In Romans 5:12–19, Paul states that sin entered by one man, using the Greek anthropos, which could mean either human or male. But twice in the passage he names Adam. “… death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam.…” Eve was one whose transgression was not like Adam’s. She had believed the tempter. Adam had sinned with full knowledge of what he was doing. Job wrote in 31:33 (KJV, NKJV): “If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding my iniquity in my bosom . . .” RSV, NIV, and NRSV have footnotes: “as Adam,” or “as Adam did.” The Apostle’s statement in Romans 5:14 about Adam’s transgression would appear to hark back to Job’s giving endorsement to the KJV’s retaining the personal name Adam in the text.

Some will object, saying “Sin is sin.” That is true. But there are differences, as stated above. Our Lord himself said: “That slave who knew what his master wanted but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. But the one that did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will be required.…” (Luke 12:47). In Matthew 12:31 and Mark 3:29, Jesus speaks of the sin that has no forgiveness – blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The Bible has degrees of culpability; and our legal systems recognize degrees of guilt.

God’s judgment

God then pronounced a curse on the serpent. It would slither along the ground and eat dust, and the enmity would increase between the serpent and the woman and between its progeny and hers. He gave the promise also of a coming victor who would crush the serpent’s head (3:14–15). The woman would bear the consequences of her sin, but her clear confession had put her in opposition to Satan, on God’s side.

God’s sentencing of the serpent had begun with the words, “Because you have done this.…” He used the same words with the man: “Because you have done this … cursed is the ground because of you. In toil you shall eat of it.…”

God did not curse the man himself, but because of his disobedience the ground from which he had come was cursed. God did not say to Eve, “Because you have done this.…” No curse was pronounced on her or because of her, although the ground being cursed would affect her too (cf. Rom. 8:19–23). And because of her transgression, the process of eventual physical death had begun in her body, as it had in Adam’s. Childbearing, which was a blessing in the Creation mandate (1:28a), would be affected. But God would not turn into a curse what had been given as a blessing.

Katharine Bushnell entitles chapter 10 in her book, God’s Word to Women, “Eve Becomes a Believer.” That is a bold statement, but she comes to it through the Genesis passage itself, as we shall see in Eve’s recognition of God’s working out of the promise of the seed that would come (3:15; 4:1).

Then, what are we to make of 3:16: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

As a missionary doctor in China, perplexed by the substitution in Chinese Bibles of the word “yokefellows” in place of “women who labored with Paul,” in Philippians 4:3, Dr. Bushnell was shocked when a male colleague told her that the mistranslation undoubtedly was due to prejudice on the part of male translators. The doctor had never thought of such a possibility. She had studied classical languages and now gave herself to increased Bible study with intense research into texts in the original languages in England’s university libraries and museums. 5

Her findings are warmly acknowledged by Gordon-Conwell Seminary’s president and Old Testament scholar, Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., as basis for two chapters concerning those words by God to Eve in his book, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament. He agrees with Bushnell’s translation of Genesis 3:16, which follows the Septuagint: “A snare [a lying in wait] has increased your sorrow and sighing. In sorrow (or pain) you will bring forth children.” Kaiser adds, “… note that bearing children in itself was a blessing described in the so-called orders of creation in Genesis 1:28. The grief lies not so much in the conception or the act of childbirth itself, but in the whole process of bringing children into the world and raising them to be whole persons before God.”

Kaiser agrees also with Bushnell’s findings on the word teshuqa, translated in 1528 as ‘desire’ (or lust) by an Italian monk named Pagnino and continued in most English translations since then. Before Pagnino, teshuqa was regularly translated ‘turning.’ Kaiser quotes Bushnell: “The Hebrew reads: ‘You are turning away [from God] to your husband, and [as a result] he will [simple future NIV, not imperative shall] rule over you.’”6 In her God’s Word to Women, Bushnell devotes twelve pages to the history of the mistranslation of teshuqa.