# Eve a virgin?



## Romans922

I'm reading Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_ and on page 422 he says that Eve was a virgin up through the fall of man. 

Is this common knowledge and can we necessarily conclude this?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Romans922 said:


> I'm reading Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_ and on page 422 he says that Eve was a virgin up through the fall of man.
> 
> Is this common knowledge and can we necessarily conclude this?



I have no idea how he could know this. What does he use to make a dogmatic statement regarding her virginity?

Incidentally, I wouldn't necessarily be convinced that simply because it notes Adam knowing her after the Fall and her conception of Cain that this necessarily proves the point. Jewish historical narrative is not always presented chronologically.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Of course, that does raise the question that if Cain was conceived pre-Fall then he wouldn't be conceived in sin.


----------



## Iconoclast

Although it would be that she had not had a child before the fall, it would not have to be true that she was a virgin.
They were already instucted to be fruitful and multiply,and it sounds as if Adam was very happy to see Eve
If the fall had not happened as of Gen 1:31, why would this writer suggest that Adam could not/or did not perform the duties of a husband? Why even speculate on this?
Obviously if Eve conceived before the fall," All" would not have died in Adam.
Rom5:12. 1Cor 15:22.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Anthony,

It's my opinion that the Fall happened pretty fast. It's _possible_ that Adam and Eve knew each other pre-Fall but I also don't think it's impossible that they did not.

The interesting thing would be that one would assume that, if they did, that she would surely conceive as menstration is a curse of the Fall. It never ceases to amaze me the kind of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" discussions we get into here.


----------



## Poimen

SemperFideles said:


> It never ceases to amaze me the kind of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" discussions we get into here.



Actually, at this point it seems as if you are in soliloquy mode but that doesn't stop the rest of us from enjoying the show!


----------



## Iconoclast

I agree Rich, that the fall probably did happen fast, but one time I heard a pastor saying that in the Hebrew, Adam got pretty excited about his helpmeet.


> 22And Jehovah God buildeth up the rib which He hath taken out of the man into a woman, and bringeth her in unto the man;
> 
> 23and the man saith, `This [is] the [proper] step! bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh!' for this it is called Woman, for from a man hath this been taken;
> 
> 24therefore doth a man leave his father and his mother, and hath cleaved unto his wife, and they have become one flesh.
> 
> 25And they are both of them naked, the man and his wife, and they are not ashamed of themselves.



Maybe someone with the Hebrew can capture the excitement that the pastor was speaking about in these text's. He said it has more the idea of Adam being extremely pleased in vs.23- sounded good to me! He that findeth a wife finds a good thing, amen!


----------



## bookslover

I get the definite impression, from Genesis 4:1 and its immediate context, that Eve did not become pregnant until after the Fall. However, this does not necessarily mean that Adam and Eve did not engage in sex until after the Fall. The Bible gives us no evidence either way. If they did, it is perfectly possible that God providentially prevented Eve from becoming pregnant.

Either way, there's no biblical evidence that Eve was a virgin until the Fall. I have no idea why Heppe would make such a statement.


----------



## Romans922

SemperFideles said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_ and on page 422 he says that Eve was a virgin up through the fall of man.
> 
> Is this common knowledge and can we necessarily conclude this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea how he could know this. What does he use to make a dogmatic statement regarding her virginity?
> 
> Incidentally, I wouldn't necessarily be convinced that simply because it notes Adam knowing her after the Fall and her conception of Cain that this necessarily proves the point. Jewish historical narrative is not always presented chronologically.
Click to expand...


Heppe actually has a really good work where he finds what everyone says on every topic. He takes all of those things that have been written on a topic and picks out the best quotes from among them. It is a really good resource for Reformed doctrine. However, this point is kind of off. This particular thought Heppe is quoting Polan (VI, 13). He says as point 4 of an argument, "As destruction was imported into the world through a virgin (for when Eve became the cause of transgression to herman, she was still a virgin, not yet known by Adam), so the salvation of the world had to be born by the ministry of a virgin."


----------



## MeanieCalvinist

Iconoclast said:


> Although it would be that she had not had a child before the fall, it would not have to be true that she was a virgin.
> They were already instucted to be fruitful and multiply,and it sounds as if Adam was very happy to see Eve
> If the fall had not happened as of Gen 1:31, why would this writer suggest that Adam could not/or did not perform the duties of a husband? Why even speculate on this?
> Obviously if Eve conceived before the fall," All" would not have died in Adam.
> Rom5:12. 1Cor 15:22.




 

Keep in mind that they were in perfect obedience to God's commandments prior to the fall.
So, I do not think anyone could build a compelling case making the assertion that Eve was a virgin prior to the fall. 
To me it would seem quite the contrary.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Romans922 said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_ and on page 422 he says that Eve was a virgin up through the fall of man.
> 
> Is this common knowledge and can we necessarily conclude this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea how he could know this. What does he use to make a dogmatic statement regarding her virginity?
> 
> Incidentally, I wouldn't necessarily be convinced that simply because it notes Adam knowing her after the Fall and her conception of Cain that this necessarily proves the point. Jewish historical narrative is not always presented chronologically.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heppe actually has a really good work where he finds what everyone says on every topic. He takes all of those things that have been written on a topic and picks out the best quotes from among them. It is a really good resource for Reformed doctrine. However, this point is kind of off. This particular thought Heppe is quoting Polan (VI, 13). He says as point 4 of an argument, "As destruction was imported into the world through a virgin (for when Eve became the cause of transgression to herman, she was still a virgin, not yet known by Adam), so the salvation of the world had to be born by the ministry of a virgin."
Click to expand...


This seems to comport more with a Roman Catholic notion that sees Mary as the Second Eve.


----------



## Narnian

To argue where the Bibile is silent is always risky. To paraphrase, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of abstinence".


----------



## Romans922

Well I still suggest this work by Heppe. Thus far it is pretty good.


----------



## reformedman

I think the fall was only a few hours after Eve was created.
I don't think menstration is a curse of the fall as someone else said above.
I don't think that immediate intimacy of each being that was created is necessarily required. When for example, the dog or the bird or fish were created, they didn't necessarily have to have intimacy right after they were created. Sex is only a part of life, not the principle first and most important part of it. This being the case and that in my opinion they fell into sin within a few hours of their creation, I conclude that they united after the fall.

in my opinion


----------



## Quickened

SemperFideles said:


> Anthony,
> 
> It's my opinion that the Fall happened pretty fast. It's _possible_ that Adam and Eve knew each other pre-Fall but I also don't think it's impossible that they did not.
> 
> The interesting thing would be that one would assume that, if they did, that she would surely conceive as menstration is a curse of the Fall. It never ceases to amaze me the kind of "angels dancing on the head of a pin" discussions we get into here.



I am led to agree with you here. That was one of the first things that came to my mind. I cant really it taking a long time before eating the forbidden fruit.

Also could it be that she was already pregnant and that the first child would be born into a world of sin and temptation? I am thinking like maybe weeks. It was just another thing that came to mind while reading this thread.

I just find it interesting that in Gen 3:16 that the pains of child bearing are mentioned. Kind of like saying "well this would have been easy and painless but now its not" kind of a thing.

Just some random thoughts as i awaken


----------



## Semper Fidelis

reformedman said:


> I think the fall was only a few hours after Eve was created.
> I don't think menstration is a curse of the fall as someone else said above.
> I don't think that immediate intimacy of each being that was created is necessarily required. When for example, the dog or the bird or fish were created, they didn't necessarily have to have intimacy right after they were created. Sex is only a part of life, not the principle first and most important part of it. This being the case and that in my opinion they fell into sin within a few hours of their creation, I conclude that they united after the fall.
> 
> in my opinion


----------



## ChristopherPaul

SemperFideles said:


> Of course, that does raise the question that if Cain was conceived pre-Fall then he wouldn't be conceived in sin.



This is key. After considering the ramifications of prelapsarian conception I can certainly see how Heppe can logically conclude that Eve was a virgin.

All offspring since Adam was created are conceived in sin, thus no _successful _conception before the fall.

Prior to the fall the only way I think a pregnancy would _fail _would be if Eve had already conceived which would mean the child within her was not conceived in sin which cannot be. With all things considered, I think we are safer assuming she was a virgin than not.

Of course Deuteronomy 29:29 applies here in that the creation narrative is not intended to be a detailed account of how the world was created and/or populated, but in setting the stage for the promised Christ.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Romans922 said:


> I'm reading Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_ and on page 422 he says that Eve was a virgin up through the fall of man.
> 
> Is this common knowledge and can we necessarily conclude this?



That sounds like a Popish idea that sex is evil.


----------



## Romans922

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_ and on page 422 he says that Eve was a virgin up through the fall of man.
> 
> Is this common knowledge and can we necessarily conclude this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like a Popish idea that sex is evil.
Click to expand...


A popish idea would be that Eve had no sex after the fall as well like Mary.

Heppe believes she had sex after the fall.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Romans922 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm reading Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_ and on page 422 he says that Eve was a virgin up through the fall of man.
> 
> Is this common knowledge and can we necessarily conclude this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like a Popish idea that sex is evil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A popish idea would be that Eve had no sex after the fall as well like Mary.
> 
> Heppe believes she had sex after the fall.
Click to expand...


But don't the Papists believe that sex always involves sin? And did not even some of the church fathers think this?


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like a Popish idea that sex is evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A popish idea would be that Eve had no sex after the fall as well like Mary.
> 
> Heppe believes she had sex after the fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But don't the Papists believe that sex always involves sin? And did not even some of the church fathers think this?
Click to expand...


First, the RCC believes all sex must be PiV.
Secondly, all sexual acts must be equally open to conception.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Spear Dane said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A popish idea would be that Eve had no sex after the fall as well like Mary.
> 
> Heppe believes she had sex after the fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't the Papists believe that sex always involves sin? And did not even some of the church fathers think this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, the RCC believes all sex must be PiV.
> Secondly, all sexual acts must be equally open to conception.
Click to expand...


What does PIV mean? There was certainly a time, in Ireland at least, when the Romanists believed it was wrong to have sex in marriage unless you were doing it to have children.


----------



## Jim

Why does the Fall need to happen before conception/birth of Cain?

The offspring of Adam are not sinful only because they were concieved in sin or committed acts of sin.

The offspring of Adam are sinful because they participated in the sin comitted by their federal head/representative, Adam, thus breaking the covenant of works.

If Eve and Cain did not sin, and if Cain was not concieved in sin, they would still have participated in the sin of Adam due to his Federal Headship.

I was always under the impression that Adam and Eve enjoyed a long period of intimate fellowship with God, walking in the Garden before being put to the test.


----------



## Romans922

But he isnt saying sex = sin. He is saying Eve was a virgin prior to the fall. In fact he isn't talking about sex, he is talking about two virgins (not sex).


----------



## py3ak

Daniel Ritchie said:


> What does PIV mean? There was certainly a time, in Ireland at least, when the Romanists believed it was wrong to have sex in marriage unless you were doing it to have children.




In Augustine's _Enchiridion_ it apepars that to him, even for the purposes of procreation and within marriage, sex is a venial sin. It was amusing to read him saying that you could *almost* think it was OK, if it weren't for Paul saying that he spoke those things by permission, rather than commandment.


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But don't the Papists believe that sex always involves sin? And did not even some of the church fathers think this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, the RCC believes all sex must be PiV.
> Secondly, all sexual acts must be equally open to conception.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does PIV mean? There was certainly a time, in Ireland at least, when the Romanists believed it was wrong to have sex in marriage unless you were doing it to have children.
Click to expand...


PiV = sexual intercourse. I abbreviated human body parts. I = in.

The Romanists in Ireland are being faithful to their tradition. The papal encyclicl _Humanae Vitae_ said that all sexual acts must be equally open to procreation. They are trying to be pro-lfie, but miss badly. Response:

1. If you copulate with your wife in say 10 days after she is pregnant (but neither of yall know it), since that act is not open to *result* in pregnancy, it is sinful. 

2. If you have sex with your wife when at times of the month when she is not fertile (not just during the period, but other times), then that is sin, since it can't result in conception.

3. If she is sterile (or you are sterile), well you get the picture. 

That is why many Romanists (understandably) associate sex with sin.


----------



## Barnpreacher

When Eve said, "I have gotten a man from the Lord", was she not essentially saying that she believed Cain would be the one to fulfill the role of the mediator in Genesis 3:15? 

Using that understanding then Cain's birth would have been post-fall.


----------



## SRoper

From what I understand Augustine believed that post-Fall sex always involves the sin of lust or inordinate desire, but this sin is covered by marriage.

Did sex before the Fall always result in conception? I think even periodic infertility is a result of the Fall, so I would have to say yes. Did Cain have to be conceived in sin? If so, then it seems Eve was a virgin.


----------



## SRoper

Spear Dane said:


> PiV = sexual intercourse. I abbreviated human body parts. I = in.



You mean coitus. Sexual intercourse has a much broader range of meaning.


----------



## RamistThomist

SRoper said:


> Did sex before the Fall always result in conception? I think even periodic infertility is a result of the Fall, so I would have to say yes. Did Cain have to be conceived in sin? If so, then it seems Eve was a virgin.



Did a woman have periods before the Fall? Would that change your statement?


----------



## RamistThomist

SRoper said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> PiV = sexual intercourse. I abbreviated human body parts. I = in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean coitus. Sexual intercourse has a much broader range of meaning.
Click to expand...


Coitus. Correct.


----------



## RamistThomist

Romans922 said:


> I'm reading Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_ and on page 422 he says that Eve was a virgin up through the fall of man.
> 
> Is this common knowledge and can we necessarily conclude this?



I have read parts of Heppe and am familiar with his format. Besides quotations from other divines, does he have evidence for his position?


----------



## ChristopherPaul

Jim said:


> Why does the Fall need to happen before conception/birth of Cain?
> 
> The offspring of Adam are not sinful only because they were concieved in sin or committed acts of sin.
> 
> The offspring of Adam are sinful because they participated in the sin comitted by their federal head/representative, Adam, thus breaking the covenant of works.
> 
> If Eve and Cain did not sin, and if Cain was not concieved in sin, they would still have participated in the sin of Adam due to his Federal Headship.



I am not sure if I read it in [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Infant-Baptism-John-P-Sartelle/dp/087552429X"]Sartelle's[/ame] pamphlet on baptism or Larry Edison's ([ame]http://www.crownandcovenant.com/product_p/ds125.htm[/ame]) pamphlet on baptism, but one of them mentioned that we are conceived in sin which explains why Christ was not conceived by a descendant of Adam but by the Holy Ghost or else He would have been born with the same sinful nature as the rest of us. The point being, it is not the act of committing sin that makes us sinful but that we are conceived in to the same sinful nature that causes our wills to be at enmity with God.


----------



## SRoper

Spear Dane said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did sex before the Fall always result in conception? I think even periodic infertility is a result of the Fall, so I would have to say yes. Did Cain have to be conceived in sin? If so, then it seems Eve was a virgin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did a woman have periods before the Fall? Would that change your statement?
Click to expand...


It's difficult to speculate on pre-Fall biology, but I don't think women had periods before the Fall simply because I find it difficult to believe that there would be infertility then. It's not a position I hold very strongly at all.


----------



## RamistThomist

I don't think I would label the body not being reprodcutively receptive 3 weeks of the month as infertile. Infertile is more long-term. Plus one can also view the period as part of nature's cycle, or something like that.


----------



## DMcFadden

"Nakedness" often carries the connotations of sex in Hebrew (duh) . That Adam and Eve were "naked" and NOT ashamed implies, to me anyhow, that Adam did more than "examine the menu" in the pre-lapsarian kitchen. That Eve did not conceive prior to the fall is not a problem. Don't some of you guys have kids? Conception does not inevitably follow intercourse, even for fertile couples. One may "permit conception" for a month or two before it actually happens. Three of my kids were conceived on the second month of "permitting conception," one on the first month, and who knows about oops?


----------



## SRoper

Spear Dane said:


> I don't think I would label the body not being reprodcutively receptive 3 weeks of the month as infertile. Infertile is more long-term. Plus one can also view the period as part of nature's cycle, or something like that.



Perhaps you are right. It does seem a bit strange though that God would give the command "be fruitful and multiply" and yet Adam and Eve only had sex out of season.


----------



## RamistThomist

SRoper said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I would label the body not being reprodcutively receptive 3 weeks of the month as infertile. Infertile is more long-term. Plus one can also view the period as part of nature's cycle, or something like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you are right. It does seem a bit strange though that God would give the command "be fruitful and multiply" and yet Adam and Eve only had sex out of season.
Click to expand...


Not at all. My knowledge of female anatomy is open to correction, but I see no reason--and certainly no evidence from the text--to think that a period is a result of the Curse of sin--perhaps the discomforts associated with PMS, but not a period itself. And if it is not a result of the Fall--as I see no reason to believe it is--then it is safe to conclude that there were certain seasons where Eve would not be "reproductively receptive."


----------

