[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

To analogize that to Christ's incarnation is certainly to say something about the sacrifice made, but it also can cheapen what Christ did. He didn't incarnate just so that he could "stand with" humanity and empathize. If that was the purpose, He wouldn't have done it. He did it for a reason. Contrary to Adam (in a really significant way), Christ incarnated specifically because of what would come of it, not despite it. That to me is so huge a difference that, even if I could draw analogies in the romance of the acts, the analogy isn't worth it.

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

A problem with the theory is the suggestion that Eve sinned. Is this true? The Bible says she was deceived (1 Tim 2), but where does it say she sinned? In her confusion, she clearly made a bad choice. Adam knowingly disobeyed God's direct command. Thus Romans 5 says that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression. To answer the question of what would have happened had Adam not eaten the fruit, I think the little the Bible has to say on this subject suggests that sin would not have entered the world bringing with it death.

Originally Posted by Nell

Eve listened to the serpent and believed his lies, and thus became deceived. This is sin. She believed the serpent rather than God. I might also add that we become deceived in the same way. We believe something contrary to God's word and become deceived.

Thanks, Peter for your thoughtful post. Also thank you Old Rasputin. Well said. . And Nell,

A few days ago I was working on another post when I decided it was probably best for me to stop posting in this vein on this thread because if I responded to Igzy’s last question to me, we were going to turn this boat-ride into a very long one, headed for some distant land. But today, seeing that the boat has traveled a little farther down the stream, I have decided to share one more thing in order to put the “noble Adam” idea in better perspective.

Any argument that Adam condescended like Christ to Eve’s fallen level and joined her in the mess she made, should be accompanied by statements that clarify the things about Adam that do not fit in that picture: Adam was in transgression and was unrepentant when he left the garden; his last words were to blame the woman and God; He was silent when God pointed out his disobedience in clear words to him.

Consider this for a moment. What if Adam, instead of being silent, had responded to God, “I listened to my wife’s voice instead of Yours. You told me not to eat of that tree, and I disobeyed You. I am responsible for this mess we’re in. I chose to listen to what my wife said, even though it was blatantly against what You told me.”

Maybe, if he had done this, he might not have been put out of the garden. By putting him out of the garden and sentencing him to labor on cursed ground, God was basically saying, “Okay, Adam, if you don’t want to acknowledge that you sinned against Me, and you want to walk in disobedience, blaming the woman and Me, then you are on your own to provide for yourself.” Maybe His cursing of the ground for Adam’s sake was so that as he sweated, laboring to make a living, he might realize how much he needed God, and repent.

The Bible says that God sent, actually drove, Adam out of the garden. Now that’s a visual: Adam being driven out of the garden by God. He didn’t go out voluntarily.

I don’t see anywhere that it says He drove Eve out.

Maybe if Adam had owned up to his sin of disobedience, as Eve did to her becoming deceived, they both would have been allowed to stay in the garden.

It is interesting that even though Adam had not repented, God killed an animal and covered both of them with skins. When I wondered what that meant, I remembered that the N.T. says that an unbelieving spouse is sanctified by a believing one (I Cor. 7:14). These verses seem to match with this scene in the garden.

We all know that Eve ultimately went with Adam, so if God did not send her out, then why did she go?

There is support for the idea that she chose to turn and follow her husband. The Greek Septuagint translates Gen. 3:16 this way: “Your turning away shall be to your husband, and he will rule over you.” This was the accepted translation of this verse at the time of Jesus. It was changed in later translations to be “Your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall rule over you.” The point is that there is some biblical support for the idea that Eve turned away to Adam and followed him out of the garden.

The Bible also gives evidence that Eve believed God’s promise about the coming seed because when she had her first child, she proclaimed, “I have gotten me a man, Yahweh.” The Bible does not record such an expression of faith from Adam.

Could it not be said, then, that Eve paid the price to bear the shame of the fall with Adam so that Christ could be incarnated? Remember, He didn’t “incarnate” by Himself and become flesh. He was the seed of woman. When the time came that the Holy Spirit came to Mary, and she had to make the decision to bear the shame of what He was asking of her, she said, "Be it unto me according to thy word."

I don’t think Eve would balk at Adam being portrayed as a type of Christ in some fashion, as previously suggested, even it it wasn’t a good fit; but, considering what I've just explained, I’m pretty sure she wouldn’t appreciate being portrayed as the maker-of-the-whole-mess while Adam was portrayed as a noble savior.

Thankful Jane