“
I'm not justifying Adam's sin. I'm saying he did what he had to do. Think of it, if he doesn't eat of the tree, what happens now? He had to do it....SC”
That was an interesting statement. And the discussion that follows is just as interesting.
But my thoughts immediately went a different direction. I wonder if Eve’s sin was not sufficient for the whole of the fall. Our birth into sin came as the result of “one man.” I see this playing out three possible ways, but only one is clearly possible since it is the one of history. The other two are as follows:
- Is that “man” who brought sin on mankind required to have been male in gender? Might the mere partaking by Eve have done the job without Adam following suit?
- Alternately, assuming that Adam was actually required to partake before the curse came upon mankind, might his restraint have saved the human race?
I surely do not see a requirement that Adam partake or there is this split in humanity. Either the sin of one was sufficient for all of us or it was not. In other words, sin had entered mankind as the result of Eve’s sin. The fact that Adam actually partook was irrelevant since he was already under the curse. That might also suggest that his partaking was also inevitable since the very thing that was enticing about the tree was now at work generally within man.
The second hypothetical is not as easy to square with the scripture (besides the actual account of the fall). SC seems to have already conceded that sin was in the world. If that sin is referred to as brought to all by the actions of one, it seems that one had already acted, therefore restraint on the part of Adam would have been no more beneficial than our striving to please God by simply obeying the law through our own strength.