Eve and Adam

[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

[SpeakersCorner]

Thanks, Old Rasputin, for bringing Milton into the discussion. It's been a long, long time since I read his account and I think now would be a good time to take another look.


SC

[Paul Cox]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

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.

Hi Jane,
Was not man (Adam, both male and female) sent out of the Garden because they had become fallen? It's hard to imagine that God would have only sent the man out of the garden and left Eve; to be fruitful and multiply with whom?

I think I remember reading that Adam simply means man. So when it says that God drove Adam from the Garden, I can't believe that gender distinctions are appropriate. He simply drove man out of the garden. Remember that before Adam was put to sleep, there was only one Adam which apparently was both male and female - the two parts having not yet been separated.

Now God was driving this man (with both his sides segregated) from the Garden, to be fruitful and multiply in sin, awaiting redemption. When Romans speaks of this "Adam," is it not this segregated Adam to which Paul refers. This segregated (I know that sounds strange, but I don't know how else to say it) went forth, and in this segregated Adam, we are all born in sin.

What say you?
Roger

[Cal]

I agree with the basic gist of Roger's post. Adam and Eve were "one flesh," so "Adam" in some uses refers to both. SC has a certain point when he alludes that they "had" to do things together. I don't think Adam's following Eve was noble, but it was understandable. After all, all they had was each other.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Igzy

After all, all they had was each other.

Ooooh, Igzy, Igzy, Igzy, this almost made me cry. (At last I get to use this smilie...)

Seriously, I think they still had God, don't you? (I can share some more verses if you like .....)

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Dear Roger,

I agree that the Bible shows that there was only one person created, Adam, who was both male and female (Gen. 1:27) and that the female part was taken out of Adam later (Gen. 2:21-22). Prior to the separation, the Bible uses the name “Adam” to refer to the original one person that was created. After the separation, however, the Bible repeatedly speaks of two. Adam and his wife or the man and the woman. After Adam named the woman, she is also referred to as Eve.

After they sinned the Bible says Adam and his wife hid themselves. It does not refer to the new twosome as only “Adam” here. Also after they had become two separate persons, God addressed each of them separately and He handled each of them differently based on their responses to Him concerning what they had done.

Gen. 3:16-17 says “to the woman He said...” and then it says “to Adam He said....,” referring to the male part only by the name “Adam.” When he drove Adam out of the garden it was with the words, “to till the ground from whence he was taken.” This phrase indicates that the name “Adam” here referred to the male because “tilling the ground” was the sentence God pronounced upon Adam, not the woman. It doesn’t fit that she would have been driven out to “till the ground.”

As for how the multiplying could take place without Eve being driven out, I think I stated my answer to that in my previous post. In brief, Gen. 3:16 shows that she turned away to Adam (Gk. Septuagint) and this indicates that she chose to follow him out, so there's no problem about reproduction taking place. God had created her as Adam’s helper, and she also heard God pronounce that they were one flesh. It is not hard to see that she would follow him.

But, having said all that, it is not important really to prove that Adam was driven out without her. I wrote my previous post in response to the statement made earlier that Eve was responsible for the whole mess and for portraying Adam as the noble savior who condescended to her fallen level.

Actually, it is fine with me to say that God sent them both out, because we all know that they both ended up outside the garden.

I hope no one thinks that I am trying to build a case that Adam was responsible for the whole mess. I most definitely am not. I know only too well the ramifications of being left holding that bag. I wouldn’t wish that on Adam or anyone for that matter .

Thankful Jane