Jane,
Comments on your comments.
"I think it is a stretch to say that there is no evidence Adam was aware of the existence of the serpent, since at the very least he was present to hear what God said to the serpent, to Eve, and to himself."
You're probably right. We only know, however, that the serpent spoke to Eve. It wasn't until she replied to God that we can be certain Adam was aware of the serpent. At any rate, whether he knew or not is not central to my interpretation.
"I didn’t say Adam needed to repent in the garden for being deceived ... (I really don’t know why you thought I was saying Adam should repent for being deceived.)"
Sorry if I misundestood you. Here's the part of your original post I was reacting to: "... it may be a little easier for women by nature to acknowledge, when confronted by God, that they were deceived, than it is for men." You can see, I'm sure, how I might interpret this to mean Adam/men was/are deceived.
"So you think she may have already lost her spiritual glow and/or her nakedness was already apparent to Adam so she was not unlike the very animals he had catalogued?! Whew. As far as I can tell this is pure speculation. What clue do you have to this in the Bible?"
Well, it isn't completely speculation. They both knew that they had become naked. If the knowledge of this came as a result of the eating (which it did), then isn't it logical that the one who ate first would appear naked first?
"...if Adam by some means did see that something had changed about her, shouldn’t that have warned him not to take her up on her offer? After all, he was a pretty smart fellow to name all those animals."
My point exactly. Yes, Adam did see the change in her and was willing to come down to her level. Look, he wasn't deceived. He knew what was happening. It was a monumental decision on his part, just as it was for God to put on the human flesh and join us. I think interpreting this story as I have helps us to see just how monumental God putting on the flesh was. It was a historical decision of immense proportions.
"The New Testament says that Adam was a figure of Christ, but I don’t think that this is referring to Adam’s fall..."
I think I covered this base when I mentioned Jonah. Jonah's act was one of disobedience, yet Jesus himself referred to Jonah as a type of him ... in this very act.
"Adam clearly blamed someone else, including God. It doesn’t fit that in his fall Adam was a figure of Christ."
Yes, after Adam's decision, he ceases to be a Christ figure. It was a revelation to me a number of years ago to discover Paul's word about Adam not being deceived. I had just glossed over this important little detail. In reflection upon it I came to see that at the moment after Eve had eaten, Adam realized the universe was seriously now out of tilt. The very one given to him to populate the earth was now different than him. If he doesn't eat as she did, all is lost.
To me, this is how many Christians view the separation between themselves and God. He is the all holy one, untouchable. It's definitely the Muslim view of God. And it is partially true -- he is all holy -- but he is quite touchable. He made himself so by condescending (as the song "Oh, How I Love Him" puts it, "What condescension, bringing us redemption...") to our level.
You may reject my interpretation. No problem. But don't you think viewing Adam's act in this way opens up a little what went on when God became flesh and tabernacled among us? I do.
SC
|