Eve and Adam

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Adam, however, failed to do likewise. He sought to take the spotlight off himself by turning it onto the woman and onto God when He said, “The woman that You gave to be with me … she gave me of the fruit and I did eat.” Clearly missing from this statement is any acknowledgment of the role the serpent played in this, and the confession, “Lord, I disobeyed you. You told me not to eat of that tree and I did.” Instead, he blamed the woman and God in his attempt to lessen his responsibility and make it someone else’s fault.

...So, here’s a thought with a little scriptural support to it--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. Most of the ex-LC women I know find it easy to say unequivocally that we all were deceived...

Jane,

That's one way to look at it. But where do you get the idea that Adam was even aware of the existence of the serpent? Unless I'm forgetting something, there is no data in the account that shows this. Adam may truly have been unaware of the serpent's existence much less his words.

Further, Adam was NOT deceived. We know this from Paul's word in 1 Timothy: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Do you really think he should admit to a sin he didn't commit?


SC

[SpeakersCorner]

I'd like to say a bit more about this section of the Word because it has always enthralled me.

Eve first sinned -- clearly sinned -- by adding to the Word of God. She added that they weren't even to touch the fruit of the tree. Unless the writer of Genesis left something out, this was Eve's theology.

And it seems so good. She is so opposed to the darn fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that she is willing to bolster God's commandment. Trouble is, she wasn't able to bolster her own resolve. Not only did she touch it, she ate it, and even offered it to her husband.

Adam's transgression here is interesting. He followed his wife into sin. It may be that she had already lost her spiritual glow and/or that her nakedness was already apparent to Adam. This surely must have concerned him because now she was not unlike the very animals he had catalogued.

He condescended to her level. He did it in full knowledge of the gravity of his act (again, 1 Timothy 2:14). Surely this is a picture of what Christ did in coming down to our level in the likeness of the flesh of sin.

So to me, Adam did the right thing. He even, like Christ, took the fall, as it were quite literally.

Sorry if I've veered into another tributary here in the stream of this thread, but this stuff is just so interesting to me.


SC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Sorry if I've veered into another tributary here in the stream of this thread, but this stuff is just so interesting to me.

As long as you are one of those 89 Brothers, this post is right on topic.


It is an interesting way to describe Adam's "transgression," though, from an entirely altruistic point of view I might add, he just wanted to stop "glowing" like the "love of his life."

[Testing123]

Brother SC, interesting indeed. I'm not sure what exactly I think of this new perspective, but I definitely appreciate hearing it, and it is food for thought.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Jane,

That's one way to look at it. But where do you get the idea that Adam was even aware of the existence of the serpent? Unless I'm forgetting something, there is no data in the account that shows this. Adam may truly have been unaware of the serpent's existence much less his words.

Further, Adam was NOT deceived. We know this from Paul's word in 1 Timothy: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Do you really think he should admit to a sin he didn't commit?

SC

I think you have to take the 1 Timothy verse as meaning that Adam wasn't deceived first. Because clearly Adam took the fruit from Eve and ate it. So at that point he was deceived.

However, I think the popular interpretation that Adam was alongside Eve all during her discourse with Satan and didn't say anything (the "wimpy, passive Adam" argument) is refuted by the verse in 1 Timothy which you cite. However, ironically, Adam did turn out to be a little wimpy and passive in the end.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think you have to take the 1 Timothy verse as meaning that Adam wasn't deceived first. Because clearly Adam took the fruit from Eve and ate it. So at that point he was deceived.

Igzy,

I dunno about that "first" business. I see where you're pulling the "first" from ... the previous verse. The verses: "13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

But that clearly has nothing to do with the deception. Adam was not deceived according to this verse.

As for him being wimpy and passive in the end, I agree. But this is after he fulfills his role as a type of Christ in coming down to his bride's level. After he eats he becomes just the opposite of a type of Christ: everything he does is wrong: he hides from God, he tries to make clothing out of fig leaves, he quickly passes the buck on his guilt.

To me, Adam as a Christ type in choosing to go down with Eve is a little like Jonah as a Christ type in choosing to go into the sea. Though their actions have a serious negative aspect to them, they do reveal something deep about Christ.


SC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

As for him being wimpy and passive in the end, I agree. But this is after he fulfills his role as a type of Christ in coming down to his bride's level.

To me, Adam as a Christ type in choosing to go down with Eve is a little like Jonah as a Christ type in choosing to go into the sea. Though their actions have a serious negative aspect to them, they do reveal something deep about Christ.

For Adam "to come down to his bride's level" is called a "transgression" by the Lord. No he wasn't "deceived" as Eve was. There is no record that Eve even knew of the Lord's command "not to eat," so she could not be a transgressor, as he was. She only heard the command second hand (?) from Adam.

But I like your take on this SC. Obviously, you are not adhering to published policy -- "if two interpretations exist, someone is not holding the Head."

Personally, I have always wondered how things would be if Adam did NOT transgress. Even though he disobeyed God, could we not say also that he was obedient to another command, "leave your mother and father (God?) and cling to your wife."

After the whole ordeal, God did seem quite sympathetic to them, and, of course, we can only surmise the tone of His voice from the written record. Then God moved in to clothe them and save them ...

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Igzy,

I dunno about that "first" business. I see where you're pulling the "first" from ... the previous verse. The verses: "13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

But that clearly has nothing to do with the deception. Adam was not deceived according to this verse.

As for him being wimpy and passive in the end, I agree. But this is after he fulfills his role as a type of Christ in coming down to his bride's level. After he eats he becomes just the opposite of a type of Christ: everything he does is wrong: he hides from God, he tries to make clothing out of fig leaves, he quickly passes the buck on his guilt.

To me, Adam as a Christ type in choosing to go down with Eve is a little like Jonah as a Christ type in choosing to go into the sea. Though their actions have a serious negative aspect to them, they do reveal something deep about Christ.


SC

Well, I think you have to take that verse in 1 Tim in the context of the whole Bible. First, I think it's talking about Adam's action in relation to Eve, not in an absolute sense. Second, how could Adam have sinned if he wasn't deceived? At some level he had to have been deceived in order to sin. I don't see how anyone could sin without being deceived.

As to the "passive Adam" I don't think you understood my point. There is a popular teaching going around meant to address the problem of husbands/fathers who are not involved enough in their families. Adam is put forth as an example of this because he (they say) was there with Eve all during her discourse with Satan but remained silent and never stepped up to protect her, he just went along with it. I don't buy that based on what 1 Tim says. I believe he was eventually passive, but not that he was there during the discourse.

Since 1 Timothy says Adam was not deceived, I have to combine that with the fact that he manifestly eventually was deceived. And since the verse is talking about him in relation to Eve, I have to conclude it means the deception started with her and spread to him, because I can't see how anyone could sin without being deceived at some level.

So, though I think your interpretation is noble in a way and I understand what you are getting at, I don't agree with it. I don't think grace can come by sinning. However, I applaud your creative thinking. Adam may have "sacrificed" for his wife by eating the fruit, but it was misplaced sacrifice, I have to believe.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

That's one way to look at it. But where do you get the idea that Adam was even aware of the existence of the serpent? Unless I'm forgetting something, there is no data in the account that shows this. Adam may truly have been unaware of the serpent's existence much less his words.

Dear SC,

I got this idea from my husband who introduced me to a book by Larry Crabb entitled The Silence of Adam. Crabb points out the words I have italicized in the verse below which indicate that Adam was with Eve when she was deceived.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her and he did eat.

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. It appears that the serpent was there because God spoke directly to him and said, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed…” Afterwards Adam named the woman Eve, which means the mother of all living. This name makes sense because He had heard God pronounce (to the serpent) that she would have seed (children) which meant they were not going to die, as should have been the case, but rather live.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Further, Adam was NOT deceived. We know this from Paul's word in 1 Timothy: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." Do you really think he should admit to a sin he didn't commit?

I didn’t say Adam needed to repent in the garden for being deceived. It is true that he did not need to repent for being deceived, because the N.T. clearly says he was not deceived. What he needed to repent for in the garden was directly disobeying God’s earlier word to him not to eat of that tree. His sin was direct disobedience to God. However, the point I was trying to make was that we need to admit we are deceived like Eve did whenever we are found by God to have been deceived. I was applying this to our present situation. (I really don’t know why you thought I was saying Adam should repent for being deceived.)

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Eve first sinned -- clearly sinned -- by adding to the Word of God. She added that they weren't even to touch the fruit of the tree. Unless the writer of Genesis left something out, this was Eve's theology.

And it seems so good. She is so opposed to the darn fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that she is willing to bolster God's commandment. Trouble is, she wasn't able to bolster her own resolve. Not only did she touch it, she ate it, and even offered it to her husband.

Genesis shows that Adam was the only one who was told directly by God not to take of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve was not formed yet, so she wasn’t there to hear this word for herself. God may have come back later and told her, but I think it is more likely that Adam told her what God had said. This means that it is possible that the words she heard were secondhand from Adam, and he may not have repeated them exactly. In other words, Adam may have been the one who was sloppy with the repetition of God’s words and taught Eve her word-added “theology.” Of course, it is possible, that he repeated them correctly, and she didn't remember them accurately.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Adam's transgression here is interesting. He followed his wife into sin. It may be that she had already lost her spiritual glow and/or that her nakedness was already apparent to Adam. This surely must have concerned him because now she was not unlike the very animals he had catalogued.

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?

If you are saying that between the time she took a bite and he took a bite, he saw what had happened to her, that doesn’t make much sense. The Bible says that their eyes were opened to see that they were naked after they ate of the tree. Using this logic, this would mean that she would have seen first because her eyes were opened first… and 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.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

He condescended to her level. He did it in full knowledge of the gravity of his act (again, 1 Timothy 2:14). Surely this is a picture of what Christ did in coming down to our level in the likeness of the flesh of sin. So to me, Adam did the right thing. He even, like Christ, took the fall, as it were quite literally.

The New Testament says that Adam was a figure of Christ, but I don’t think that this is referring to Adam’s fall. Christ was perfectly obedient to God in what He did. He was sinless. Adam was clearly disobedient and sinful in what he did. He did what God told him not to do when he ate of that tree. Christ was obedient to God's will. He didn't blame others or God for His death. Adam clearly blamed someone else, including God. It doesn’t fit that in his fall Adam was a figure of Christ.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Sorry if I've veered into another tributary here in the stream of this thread, but this stuff is just so interesting to me.
SC

I think this topic is a major turn off of this thread. I am guilty of opening the door to this further tributary by my comments to Mike. Sorry. Perhaps this is a topic for another thread (or forum J), that is, if it is of interest to you, SC, and/or to others.

I have never spent time on this topic until the last year or so, and have done so only because God kept having people talk to me about the subject and put books in my hand to read. I finally decided the Lord wanted me to educate myself about all this, so I’m in the learning process and looking closely at the Bible to confirm or refute what I read from others. That’s probably why this came to mind and I shared what I did to Mike. A lot of what I’ve learned to date has been a real blessing.

Thankful

[SpeakersCorner]

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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I think this topic is a major turn off of this thread. I am guilty of opening the door to this further tributary by my comments to Mike. Sorry. Perhaps this is a topic for another thread (or forum J), that is, if it is of interest to you, SC, and/or to others.

Some of the best forum discussions are "off-topic."

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Some of the best forum discussions are "off-topic."

Agreed. I have written a little more on this one, that I'm about to post, so I guess we'll just row, row, row our boats on gently down this stream until we get pulled over by the river patrol ...

[Thankful Jane]

[/quote]

Originally Posted by Igzy

As to the "passive Adam" I don't think you understood my point. There is a popular teaching going around meant to address the problem of husbands/fathers who are not involved enough in their families. Adam is put forth as an example of this because he (they say) was there with Eve all during her discourse with Satan but remained silent and never stepped up to protect her, he just went along with it. I don't buy that based on what 1 Tim says. I believe he was eventually passive, but not that he was there during the discourse.

Since 1 Timothy says Adam was not deceived, I have to combine that with the fact that he manifestly eventually was deceived. And since the verse is talking about him in relation to Eve, I have to conclude it means the deception started with her and spread to him, because I can't see how anyone could sin without being deceived at some level.

So, though I think your interpretation is noble in a way and I understand what you are getting at, I don't agree with it. I don't think grace can come by sinning. However, I applaud your creative thinking. Adam may have "sacrificed" for his wife by eating the fruit, but it was misplaced sacrifice, I have to believe.

Sorry, I did not see your post or Ohio’s before I posted my last one.

Some of what I am learning (from others as well as gleaning from the Bible on my own) offers some possible light on I Tim. 2:14. My conclusions aren’t fixed. I’ve just got a lot of things simmering in the pot while I continue to look into this. Here is some of the stew.

It is important to understand what the transgression referred to in this verse is and who the Bible holds responsible for it. Some commentary that says that the verse in I Timothy should say “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being [thoroughly] deceived became [involved] in the transgression.”

This rendering shows that the transgression being referred to here is something other than Eve’s being deceived, because she became involved in the transgression through deception. According to two verses in the O.T. and some in the new, the transgression was Adam’s. See Job 31:33 and Hosea 6:7.

(The KJV version of Hosea 6:7 has the word “men” in it, but the original Hebrew word is “Adam.” It says, “But they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me.” )

In the New Testament, according to Romans, the transgression or sin was the disobedience of one person and that was Adam. See Rom 5:12-19. Rom 5:14 says, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. [italics mine]

So with this perspective, I Tim 2:14 shows us that the transgression was already present or underway when Eve became involved. One commentator says that Adam was to “keep” the garden and that this word “keep” is the same Hebrew word used for the flaming swords “guarding” the way to the tree of life. It appears that Adam may have already failed to guard the garden from the serpent, because the serpent was present in the garden to beguile Eve.

Larry Crabb (and there are other commentators who say likewise) says that Adam’s silence was his sin. God has dominion through His speaking, so Adam, who was made in God’s image and who was charged to have dominion over the earth and subdue it, was to do so by speaking. Crabb says he should have spoken the truth to subdue the serpent who was clearly leading them to disobey God’s command concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Here are some verses in Job that lend some further support (other than the “with her” support) to Crabb’s idea that Adam’s transgression was silence:

Job 31:33-34 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom: Did I fear a great multitude, or did the contempt of families terrify me, that I kept silence, and went not out of the door? (R. V.)

Lots of food for thought.

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Dear SC,

Here are my comments on (some of) your comments on my comments .

Thanks for accepting some of my points as having some merit. I won’t comment on those. Also, thanks for your explanation about how you thought I was saying Adam was deceived. That makes sense.

Your comments in blue; mine in black.

...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.

My point was that Adam could not see the change in her until after he ate. His decision to join her took place before he ate ...

I understand that you are trying to point to typology in some way, but to portray Adam as honorable and noble by condescending to Eve’s level in a sacrificial manner doesn’t really work for me. It’s a good thought in a way, but in another way it’s not. I guess it all depends on your perspective. I’m not sure Eve felt honored or thought that Adam was very noble when he accused her to God ... and God's comments to Adam don’t support the idea that He knew Adam's action was for the sake of typology.

My thought about all this is that there is a lot more to understand and learn from this account than just trying to view it as typology. But, I have no problem with you doing that.

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.

There was a difference between Jonah and Adam. Unlike Adam, Jonah had faced and confessed his sin before he went over board to save those on the ship. Jesus’s reference to Jonah as a type of Himself, referred to Jonah after his sin had been removed by confession. He was not in the very act of disobedience.

Adam never did confess that he had disobeyed God’s direct command (even after God repeated this to him). He was put out of the garden without having confessed. It was not a good scene that day.

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.

Thanks for being okay with me rejecting your interpretation ‘cause I can’t help doing that. It just doesn’t fit for me, though it would make Adam look a lot better if it did .

To answer your question, I don't think viewing additional typology will help me appreciate or understand what went on when God became flesh and tabernacled among us. That act in itself speaks loudly enough, and the message about the love in the heart of God for us, which we see in the culmination of his emptying Himself on the cross, couldn't be more clear.

Peace.

Thankful Jane

[Cal]

SC,

I still don't see how someone could sin without in some sense being deceived.

But look at it another way. If Adam wasn't deceived then his disobedience was the most willful of sins. The Bible definitely tells us that to sin knowing what we are doing is worse that to sin not knowing. ("Father forgive them for they know not what they do." The import is if they did know what they were doing then forgiveness might be harder to come by because the sin is worse.)

The verse in 1 Tim 2 is clearly saying that Adam was a superior leader because he was not deceived. But the Bible makes clear that if you are morally clear about what is going on and still choose to sin you are worse than one who is not clear. So if that's the case, how could Adam be the superior leader, since he would be less moral that Eve for sinning more willfully?

But, regardless, if Adam was not deceived in the way you mean that means he was fully clear, with no fallacious thought in his head. But in order to sin one must at some level assume fallacious thoughts, one must at the very least deceive oneself. Again I don't see how you can both not be deceived and also sin, because at some level you are believing a lie when you sin.

BTW, read The Message version of those verses in 1 Tim 2. It reads, "Eve was deceived first..." as I wrote earlier.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Igzy

SC,

I still don't see how someone could sin without in some sense being deceived.

But look at it another way. If Adam wasn't deceived then his disobedience was the most willful of sins. The Bible definitely tells us that to sin knowing what we are doing is worse that to sin not knowing. ("Father forgive them for they know not what they do." The import is if they did know what they were doing then forgiveness might be harder to come by because the sin is worse.)

The verse in 1 Tim 2 is clearly saying that Adam was a superior leader because he was not deceived. But the Bible makes clear that if you are morally clear about what is going on and still choose to sin you are worse than one who is not clear. So if that's the case, how could Adam be the superior leader, since he would be less moral that Eve for sinning more willfully?

But, regardless, if Adam was not deceived in the way you mean that means he was fully clear, with no fallacious thought in his head. But in order to sin one must at some level assume fallacious thoughts, one must at the very least deceive oneself. Again I don't see how you can both not be deceived and also sin, because at some level you are believing a lie when you sin.

BTW, read The Message version of those verses in 1 Tim 2. It reads, "Eve was deceived first..." as I wrote earlier.

Hi Igzy,

Why do you believe that one has to be deceived in order to sin? Are you thinking that no one would want to sin against God, and so if they did it would have to mean they were fooled or tricked into doing so? This does seem logical.

However, maybe one can sin without being deceived. I think I have a possible example: wanting something that isn't yours (coveting) (as Satan did when he coveted God's place). You don't have to be deceived to decide you want something that isn't yours.

Maybe we could say that Satan was self-deceived to believe he could actually take God's place. In the same way Adam could have become self-deceived.

In 1 Tim 2:14 the word "deceived" means "seduced." For someone to be deceived or seduced means another party is involved and to blame for what happens. So, Eve was clearly seduced by Satan; whereas, since the Bible plainly says Adam was not deceived (seduced by another), thus Adam could have sinned out of self-deception like the devil did.

Just a thought.

Thankful Jane

[SpeakersCorner]

Igzy,

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.

The sin is bad and Adam was cursed for it. But it depicts the extreme situation God was in when he faced his fallen bride-to-be. Now let me be very clear about this: God did not sin. But God, like Adam, made a decision of awesome proportions. He would put on the flesh. I don't know what this flesh really entailed but I know it wasn't the flesh of the resurrected Christ. It was truly in the likeness of the flesh of sin.

The parallel is the awesome, terrible choice before both Adam and God. They both chose rightly, even though it cost them both their lives and reputations.


SC

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

There was a difference between Jonah and Adam. Unlike Adam, Jonah had faced and confessed his sin before he went over board to save those on the ship. Jesus’s reference to Jonah as a type of Himself, referred to Jonah after his sin had been removed by confession. He was not in the very act of disobedience. [/FONT][/COLOR]

Jane,

I don't see that. I just reread the account of Jonah and his disobedience seems the greater since he was fully aware he was fleeing God, even that he was the cause of the mariners troubles, but he was unwilling to change his way. He would rather die than do God's will.

This is a man bold in his sin. Luther would have loved him. I think bolder than Adam who I would guess gulped before he gulped, if you get my drift. Neither man was deceived one bit. They were clear.

So I stand by my statement that Jonah could be a type of Christ even in a sinful state.


SC

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Hi Igzy,

Why do you believe that one has to be deceived in order to sin? Are you thinking that no one would want to sin against God, and so if they did it would have to mean they were fooled or tricked into doing so? This does seem logical.

However, maybe one can sin without being deceived. I think I have a possible example: wanting something that isn't yours (coveting) (as Satan did when he coveted God's place). You don't have to be deceived to decide you want something that isn't yours.

Maybe we could say that Satan was self-deceived to believe he could actually take God's place. In the same way Adam could have become self-deceived.

In 1 Tim 2:14 the word "deceived" means "seduced." For someone to be deceived or seduced means another party is involved and to blame for what happens. So, Eve was clearly seduced by Satan; whereas, since the Bible plainly says Adam was not deceived (seduced by another), thus Adam could have sinned out of self-deception like the devil did.

Just a thought.

Thankful Jane

Hi Jane,

Well, in our case things are a bit muddled because we are born fallen and so are sort of born deceived. (By deceived I mean thinking wrongly, i.e. believing something to be true which isn't.)

But Adam and Eve case is different; they were perfect, humanly speaking. They had no flaw. Wrong thinking was not in their programming. They had to somehow choose to think wrongly. Since fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs), we can safely say that disregarding the Lord is the beginning of foolishness. As soon as Eve began to disregard the Lord's promise, she became foolish and deceived. Adam followed. They were both deceived. I'm still pretty sure that when 1 Tim says the man was not deceived, but the women, that is means Eve took the lead in what?--being deceived; and Adam followed her in what?--being deceived. So Paul is saying because of this the woman got sent back to the minors.

Perhaps you are right that Adam wasn't deceived directly by Satan; but certainly Satan deceived him indirectly through Eve.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Igzy,

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.

The sin is bad and Adam was cursed for it. But it depicts the extreme situation God was in when he faced his fallen bride-to-be. Now let me be very clear about this: God did not sin. But God, like Adam, made a decision of awesome proportions. He would put on the flesh. I don't know what this flesh really entailed but I know it wasn't the flesh of the resurrected Christ. It was truly in the likeness of the flesh of sin.

The parallel is the awesome, terrible choice before both Adam and God. They both chose rightly, even though it cost them both their lives and reputations.


SC

SC,

I knew it. You are a hopeless romantic. Your wife must love that in you.

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Hi Igzy,

Why do you believe that one has to be deceived in order to sin? Are you thinking that no one would want to sin against God, and so if they did it would have to mean they were fooled or tricked into doing so? This does seem logical.

However, maybe one can sin without being deceived. I think I have a possible example: wanting something that isn't yours (coveting) (as Satan did when he coveted God's place). You don't have to be deceived to decide you want something that isn't yours.

Maybe we could say that Satan was self-deceived to believe he could actually take God's place. In the same way Adam could have become self-deceived.

In 1 Tim 2:14 the word "deceived" means "seduced." For someone to be deceived or seduced means another party is involved and to blame for what happens. So, Eve was clearly seduced by Satan; whereas, since the Bible plainly says Adam was not deceived (seduced by another), thus Adam could have sinned out of self-deception like the devil did.

Just a thought.

Thankful Jane

For many years I have considered what it means to "sin" - particularly in relation to "being deceived." Actually, prior to following this conversation, and even still, I consider a sin - by definition - to be "living in deception." Perhaps not consciously.

Satan is the "Father of Liars". Since his fall, he created deception part and parcel with sin.

John 1:3 says "All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made."

When Lucifer fell, he wasn't making a choice between "God" and "evil." Nothing existed besides God. What Lucifer chose was "not God" - that is, he chose something that didn't exist. He chose a lie. Satan's entire existence is founded upon non-existence, non-reality. The entire world has emerged from a foundation of something that does not exist.

The Word says "The wages of sin are death." Re-phrased: "The wages of a lie are non-existence." In a lie, a foundation that is not God, yourexist in a world that has no real source - it is constructed and empty.

Anything in that world is "sin" - because its source is a choice for something that does not exist.

A man might "consciously" chose to covet his neighbor's possession, and because it is "conscious" we might say he is not "deceived." He is deceived. The created man does not covet and has not desire to covet (aside from the external influence of the Father of Liars, that is, "deception"). The desire to covet is based upon an eternal deception, one that governs the man whose source is not God - the totality of reality.

That's all a tangent from the tangent from this thread, but the discussion struck a chord with something I've been considering as of late. Forgive the divergence...

Peter

P.S. I missed the thoughtful posts of Igzy and SpeakersCorner before I posted this. They cover similar ground and disagree with what I'm saying, respectively. I'll let my post stand as it is and come what may...

[aron]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

The Word says "The wages of sin are death." Re-phrased: "The wages of a lie are non-existence." In a lie, a foundation that is not God, you exist in a world that has no real source - it is constructed and empty.

The word that came to my mind when reading this was 'vanity'. Vanity is the source (self apart from God), vain is the action (futile), and vanity is the result (nothing, or no-thing). We see a time lag between 'sin' and 'death', but to God it is all the same (no)thing. And I especially liked your choice of words: constructed and empty. Sounds like a great definition of religion to me.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Larry Crabb (and there are other commentators who say likewise) says that Adam’s silence was his sin. God has dominion through His speaking, so Adam, who was made in God’s image and who was charged to have dominion over the earth and subdue it, was to do so by speaking. Crabb says he should have spoken the truth to subdue the serpent who was clearly leading them to disobey God’s command concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. ...

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Here are some verses in Job that lend some further support (other than the “with her” support) to Crabb’s idea that Adam’s transgression was silence:

Job 31:33-34 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom: Did I fear a great multitude, or did the contempt of families terrify me, that I kept silence, and went not out of the door? (R. V.)

Lots of food for thought.

Thankful Jane

TJ--

These verses in Genesis 3 seem to support what you're saying. By Gen. 3:8, the deed was done. God was walking in the garden and called to Adam. Why didn't God call to Eve? The case could be made that God was holding Adam accountable for the whole thing, since God had given dominion to Adam.

God called to Adam and asked "Where are you?" (He didn't say "Where are ya'll?") Then God asked Adam "Who told you you were naked?"

Eve didn't tell Adam he was naked. Who did? How did they know? (Their eyes had just been opened and they knew they were naked. ) Someone told Adam: not Eve and not God. Let's see...who does that leave... ?

God knew where they were and what they had done. Adam didn't seem to have a clue that due to their disobedience, the fall of man had just taken place. He even blamed God for giving Eve to him for a wife. Adam's need was to take responsibility and own up to his own personal disobedience. The serpent was cursed and Eve was blessed by being the vehicle through whom the head of the serpent will be bruised.

Nell

8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
9 And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

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.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

The sin is bad and Adam was cursed for it. But it depicts the extreme situation God was in when he faced his fallen bride-to-be. Now let me be very clear about this: God did not sin. But God, like Adam, made a decision of awesome proportions. He would put on the flesh. I don't know what this flesh really entailed but I know it wasn't the flesh of the resurrected Christ. It was truly in the likeness of the flesh of sin.

The parallel is the awesome, terrible choice before both Adam and God. They both chose rightly, even though it cost them both their lives and reputations.
SC

Dear SC,

You certainly have made a heroic and passionate effort to explain Adam’s action as a type of Christ’s redemptive act of putting on the flesh so he could die in our place.

I would like to be persuaded by you just so we could be on the same page as believers , but your arguments are too over the top for me. I have to come back to my rule of thumb which is to try my best to stay with what the Bible says and to examine interpretations in the light and context of the whole body of scripture. An accurate interpretation should be a fit throughout.

Try as I may I cannot shut out hearing in what you write that Adam's action (sin) is being glorified, even though you insist you are not doing this. The Bible says that if a man sins and suffers for it, there is no glory in this. It says that what is acceptable to God is patiently bearing suffering when there is no sin. I have to conclude that an interpretation that can be construed as glorifying sin, which yours easily can, is a not a good one. What Adam did was not acceptable on any level.

What biblical footing is there to say that Adam just had to do it? What biblical support is there for Adam just having to sin? Should Adam have sinned so grace could abound?

You asked what would have happened if he didn’t sin. I’m sure we’d all like to know that. I for one wish he had made the choice not to sin. I think God could have handled that just fine. I don’t think the result would have been near as bad as the one we were born into.

The result of the choice Adam made was of awesome proportions, and they weren’t good, since in Adam all die. Take a look at world history for the evil and suffering that has come to all men as a result of his choice. Nothing to glory about there.

I can see in the Bible that Adam’s transgression was a figure for us in this way: it shows us the power of one man's disobedience to bring death and suffering to billions of people. Paul used this figure to convince us that, in the same way, Christ’s obedience had the power to bring life to all mankind. This is not my interpretation, but what the Bible says about Adam’s transgression being a figure.

I agree that what Adam did cost him his reputation, as it should have. However, Christ did not “lose” his reputation. The Bible says he freely chose to make Himself of no reputation.

Furthermore, Christ’s putting on the flesh in order to die on the cross for our sins was ordained in the foreknowledge of God. It was not a stop gap decision God “rightly” made when he was faced with the sin problem after the fact. There is no parallel in what Adam did.

Also, Adam being a type of Christ laying down his life for the church had already taken place (Gen. 2:21-22, where God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam...). This was clearly before Adam’s monumental decision to sin. The type occurred, as is fitting to the picture, when Adam was still sinless.

As for Jonah, the Bible says he was a figure because he was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights. It doesn’t say anything about his disobedience being a part of that figure.

I thank you for the clarity this argument has brought to me as I have been searching out the scriptures to see what is true.

I love the Bible and its typology as you do. I learned about the existence of typology from Witness Lee and am thankful for that. I now believe he was way too free in his interpretations and was not governed by the Bible’s interpretations as he should have been. That got us in a lot of trouble (as support for deputy authority for example). I’m working hard to break free from loose interpretations, so I just can’t buy into yours on this.

Thankful Jane

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Well, in our case things are a bit muddled because we are born fallen and so are sort of born deceived. (By deceived I mean thinking wrongly, i.e. believing something to be true which isn't.)

But Adam and Eve case is different; they were perfect, humanly speaking. They had no flaw. Wrong thinking was not in their programming. They had to somehow choose to think wrongly. Since fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs), we can safely say that disregarding the Lord is the beginning of foolishness. As soon as Eve began to disregard the Lord's promise, she became foolish and deceived. Adam followed. They were both deceived. I'm still pretty sure that when 1 Tim says the man was not deceived, but the women, that is means Eve took the lead in what?--being deceived; and Adam followed her in what?--being deceived. So Paul is saying because of this the woman got sent back to the minors.

Perhaps you are right that Adam wasn't deceived directly by Satan; but certainly Satan deceived him indirectly through Eve.

Dear Igzy,

If Adam sinned after Eve and was a victim of Eve’s deception, then wasn’t she responsible for the transgression? If she was responsible why does Romans 5 say Adam was?

Something is wrong with this picture. I know the traditional understanding is that Eve is to blame for the whole mess, but is that what the Bible says? One commentator I read says that Paul says eight times that “one person” was accountable for the fall and two times that this person was Adam.

To my mind, this is a biblical problem and a question that needs an answer. If what Paul says in Romans 5 is the truth, then I Tim. 2:14 should not be construed to mean that Eve was accountable for the transgression and Adam was her victim. It needs another explanation.

The Concordant Literal version says, “And Adam was not seduced, but the woman being deluded has come to be in the transgression.”

This brings me back to the consideration of Adam having sinned prior to Eve’s deception and their eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Thus far, the only thing that fits these pieces together for me is the understanding that Adam was with Eve and did not obey God to exercise dominion over the serpent by speaking.

This fits with Job 31:33 which shows that Adam hid his iniquity in his bosom and also indicates he remained silent. (The indication is in Job’s appeal that he did not remain silent like Adam did).

This food for thought has the potential of producing a good case of spiritual indigestion.

Thankful Jane

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Dear Igzy,

If Adam sinned after Eve and was a victim of Eve’s deception, then wasn’t she responsible for the transgression? If she was responsible why does Romans 5 say Adam was?

Thankful Jane

Because, in the end, it's always the guy that ends up getting blamed for everything.

Seriously, the husband/father is always ultimately responsible for whatever his family does. Always been that way, always will be.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because, in the end, it's always the guy that ends up getting blamed for everything.

Seriously, the husband/father is always ultimately responsible for whatever his family does. Always been that way, always will be.

That's a quick and easy out .

So what is the biblical basis for this belief? The Bible says each man is accountable for his own sin. I always thought that included me. What you say sounds like women who are married will not be held accountable. Must admit that would be nice, but I think its a bit risky to take that position.

God addressed Eve directly after the fall and asked her what she had done. She had to give account. God pronounced certain things to Adam and Eve based on their answers.

If your answer is serious I need biblical support for it ... pretty please.

Thankful Jane

[SpeakersCorner]

Jane,

As I said, it's fine with me if you don't buy my interpretation. I'll be honest: I think I'm right on this one. But maybe I am way off. If so, the Lord will reveal that to me in debates such as this one. Somehow your rebuffs and rebuttals haven't done that, nay, not in the least.


SC

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Jane,

As I said, it's fine with me if you don't buy my interpretation. I'll be honest: I think I'm right on this one. But maybe I am way off. If so, the Lord will reveal that to me in debates such as this one. Somehow your rebuffs and rebuttals haven't done that, nay, not in the least.


SC

Somehow I am not surprised by that ... , but at any rate, I've enjoyed the discussion. It is always good to get into the Bible and to ask God for light on His Word.

As always, grace and peace to you.

Thankful Jane

[UntoHim]

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

That's a quick and easy out .

So what is the biblical basis for this belief? The Bible says each man is accountable for his own sin. I always thought that included me. What you say sounds like women who are married will not be held accountable. Must admit that would be nice, but I think its a bit risky to take that position.

God addressed Eve directly after the fall and asked her what she had done. She had to give account. God pronounced certain things to Adam and Eve based on their answers.

If your answer is serious I need biblical support for it ... pretty please.

Thankful Jane

Because the biblical principle is the wife is supposed to submit to the husband (you know the verses). So, ultimately the husband is responsible, especially if he in the end goes along with his wife's suggestion to sin.

Think of it this way, a captain and a corporal are on a mission together. The captain is in command by rank. The corporal suggests they go AWOL. The captain goes along with it. They get caught and are brought before a general. Who do you think the general is going to hold ultimately responsible for what they did? The captain, of course, because it was his responsibility to control those under his command, in this case the corporal. Although the corporal will be punished too, the captain will be ultimately responsible. It can be no other way.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Admin

Funny, Adamin.

Yes it was doubtful for awhile, but after they kissed and made up, they proceeded to populate the earth with billions of people who have been faithful to this very day to repeat their special sitting-under-the-tree tradition .... All us married folks can testify to that.

Igzy ... Thanks for your reply ... I'm retiring for the day... but sometime after tomorrow I'll be back ...

Thankful Jane

[Nell]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

...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

SC,

I think this is the most ... unusual (?) ... statement I've read in all the forum discussions I've read to date. It appears that you're saying that the only way we could end up in the mess we're in now is for Adam to do what he did. Is that what you're saying?

And, please answer your own question..."if he doesn't eat of the tree, what happens now?"

Do you think that God's plan was for man to fall and Adam was the "fall guy"?

Nell

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Nell

Do you think that God's plan was for man to fall and Adam was the "fall guy"?

It would be hard to say man's fall wasn't part of God's plan, wouldn't it?

I mean, if the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world, doesn't that kind of prove that the fall was part of the plan?

God knew man would fall and man had to fall. Not that Adam didn't have his choice in the matter, but there was basically no way for God to accomplish what He needs to accomplish in order to defeat His enemy except that man be created and permitted to fall.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I've always considered that man's repentance is the ultimate denunciation of Satan's rebellion.

In trillions of ways, we've all seen what the enemy has to offer in his way of independence from God and we stand against the enemy to testify that we choose the life tree as soon as the way is reopened...

[Nell]

God provided a plan for redemption. I don't think we can determine what God could or couldn't do. After all, He is God.

Regardless, I'm reacting to this:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

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

This seems to indicate that Adam was cognizant of what he was doing when he did it and there was no other way for "him" but to sin. I don't understand this logic.

Nell

[SpeakersCorner]

Nell,

1. "It appears that you're saying that the only way we could end up in the mess we're in now is for Adam to do what he did. Is that what you're saying?"

My answer: Not sure I'm getting your question but I'll take a stab at it. Eve put us in the "mess we're in." Adam responded to her mistake by joining her in that mess. I'm saying that on one level he did the right thing by doing that.

2. "And, please answer your own question..."if he doesn't eat of the tree, what happens now?" "

What happens if he doesn't eat is that we have the first couple, the couple that is to populate the earth, with an unequal relationship of immense proportions. Maybe they flee each other (likely) and then fail in their command to populate the earth. Maybe Eve would simply always fear Adam and his righteousness (also likely). She eventually dies, he doesn't. Terrible!

3. "Do you think that God's plan was for man to fall and Adam was the 'fall guy'?"

It's an academic question. For one thing, God definitely knew he would fall. He's omniscient ... plus the lamb was slain from the get-go. The fall was gonna happen. For another thing, the fall actually proves that man had a free will. If man doesn't fall, Satan would say, "Sure he worships you, big deal. He's a puppet." (This is somewhat what he said of Job.) The fall cuts that argument off at the pass.

I don't believe God intended the fall. I believe He knew it would happen.

My biggest point in this whole argument isn't whether or not Adam's sin was terrible. It's that his joining Eve in her fallen state is a picture of what God did in putting on the flesh.


SC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

SC, I think this is the most ... unusual (?) ... statement I've read in all the forum discussions I've read to date. It appears that you're saying that the only way we could end up in the mess we're in now is for Adam to do what he did. Is that what you're saying?

Nell, after all the crazy stuff we have been thru on these forums, this to me was a brilliant statement!

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

My biggest point in this whole argument isn't whether or not Adam's sin was terrible. It's that his joining Eve in her fallen state is a picture of what God did in putting on the flesh.


SC

I haven't jumped into this discussion, mostly because its just been so fascinating to "listen to." I just don't know about this proposition you are proposing, SC. The analogy to Christ's incarnation just doesn't hold up.

If your analogy works, its only because its quaint, not because it speaks something about our eternal state. The analogy is one of sentiment. Adam, knowing his wife screwed up, came down to her level and joined her. Its a quaint sentiment. But a stupid action. It bore nothing. He made a decision to join her in a corrupted state with no hope of emerging from that. Its a bald sentimental move in that version with no benefitial long-term effect of the decision (which is the usual reason folks make decisions to bear with another in their screw-ups).

To say that is, in any way (beyond the sentimental) similar or analogous to what Christ did, is to nullify the meaning of what Christ did, beyond just a quant sentiment.

Yes, I appreciate that Christ was emptied and was fashioned as a man with all those temptations I struggle with. I appreciate that in a sentimental way. But that act does nothing for me, aside from knowing that I've got a partner in misery. His incarnation was significant - in a lasting way - only because of His death and resurrection. He wasn't just trying to say "Hey, I'm one of you guys. You're my folks, so I'll stick with you in your miserable state." At best, that's all Adam did. There is no comparision, except a trite one, between what Christ did and what Adam did. Really, I just don't see it.

Just because we can craft an analogy between surface acts does not mean there's any meaning in that analogy.

Of course, despite my bolder statements here, I'm ever-ready to be shot down in my thoughts. But I can't see it another way from where I'm at here...

Peter

[OBW]

“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:

1. 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?
2. 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.

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Because the biblical principle is the wife is supposed to submit to the husband (you know the verses). So, ultimately the husband is responsible, especially if he in the end goes along with his wife's suggestion to sin.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Think of it this way, a captain and a corporal are on a mission together. The captain is in command by rank. The corporal suggests they go AWOL. The captain goes along with it. They get caught and are brought before a general. Who do you think the general is going to hold ultimately responsible for what they did? The captain, of course, because it was his responsibility to control those under his command, in this case the corporal. Although the corporal will be punished too, the captain will be ultimately responsible. It can be no other way.

Hi Igzy,

Thanks for your answer.

It was also the captain’s own independent responsibility not to go AWOL. He was to listen to the general's voice only. He had been instructed and had full understanding about what was expected of him, and possibly had such knowledge before the corporal had even joined the service.

Actually, I disagree with you somewhat in your response because I don’t think Adam should bear all the blame. Does that surprise you? Maybe it appears that I am contending that he should? You know, blame Adam, not Eve (and all her female descendants.)

No. I am not doing that. I believe that it was both Adam and Eve who toppled the situation. They were both responsible, but in varying degrees.

However, I do thank you for what you wrote. It means to me that the message I have been trying to get across in my last few posts (since one of the captain's descendants wanted to pursue this discussion) is coming through to some degree, though this has come about in somewhat backwards way.

To clarify what message I have been trying to communicate, maybe working some more with your word picture will be the best way:

The consequence of the captain and corporal’s AWOL act was that many people lost their lives for years to come because the enemy took control of the place the captain had been assigned to guard. At one point, the general came on the scene and defeated the enemy and extended a pardon to both the captain and the corporal.

The story of the captain and the corporal was passed down for centuries and was translated into other languages by relatives of the captain. Along the way it morphed until it read like this: The corporal caused the death of millions of people by going AWOL; the corporal’s descendants cannot be trusted and must be carefully guarded and controlled lest they do it again. Because of this, many of the captain's descendants viewed the corporal’s descendants with suspicion and actually treated them as if they had not been pardoned.

One day, hundreds of years later, one of the corporal’s descendants, who had mastered the original language, read the story as it was first written and then studied the history of the story’s translations and traced its gradual emphasis and content change. In so doing, this researching descendant discovered that in the original story, the captain had been directly commanded by the general to guard the place and never to go AWOL. The researcher also discovered that other writings about this story, which were also in the early languages, said plainly that the captain was responsible, but these writings had been overlooked and minimized by the captain’s descendants.

The light began to dawn that the captain was actually the one with more accountability than the corporal because he was in the service before the corporal and had risen to a higher level of responsibility. The captain had been given the marching orders directly by the general before the corporal arrived on the scene and he had knowingly disobeyed them.

The corporal’s descendants, who had borne the blame for all the mess that happened and had suffered under centuries of abuse because of this, had not deserved this.

When the corporal’s descendant tried to talk to the captain’s descendants about what had really happened, hoping to put the whole event in proper perspective, an intense discussion broke out. One of the captain’s descendants would not budge and ultimately insisted, “The corporal put us in the ‘mess we're in.’ The captain responded to his mistake by joining him in that mess.” “He did what he had to do.”

But, another one of the captain’s descendants, growing somewhat weary of the corporal’s descendant continuing to press the point of the captain’s involvement and responsibility finally said it was true that the captain was responsible and everybody knew that. It was just the way it was in the military, always was, and always would be. The captain was to blame.

Guess what the corporal’s descendant said to this honest admission?

“No, dear captain’s descendant, it wasn’t all the captain’s fault. Both the captain and the corporal failed. But, thanks so much for this acknowledgement from all of us who descended from the corporal, who to this very day have been maligned and mistreated because of the traditional repetition and misemphasis of this story, for acknowledging the role that the captain played. Thanks for indirectly admitting that the blame has wrongly placed for centuries.”

Well, I guess I have to say, as one of the corporal’s descendants who has been seeking to communicate this point to some of the captain’s descendants, “mission accomplished” though, as I said, I had to come at it a backwards way.

Thankful

[Cal]

Jane,

Well, maybe I haven't been following things too well. But I hope that no believes that because 1 Tim says that Eve was tempted first that means Adam bears no blame, and so women should be blacklisted. That's like blaming the Jews for killing Jesus.

Still, Paul seems to have had an "attitude" about women. What are we to make of that?

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Jane,

Well, maybe I haven't been following things too well. But I hope that no believes that because 1 Tim says that Eve was tempted first that means Adam bears no blame, and so women should be blacklisted. That's like blaming the Jews for killing Jesus.

Still, Paul seems to have had an "attitude" about women. What are we to make of that?

Igs & TJ,

I think the 89 brothers from the Midwest have been extremely patient with us for vectoring off into the wild blue yonder. Whatever we make of Paul seeming to have an 'tude about women, I suggest another thread. Igzy, I nominate you to start the thread. All in favor? . Motion carries.

OK Igs -- go for it. Mr. Moderator, can you move these posts over?

Nell

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Nell

I think the 89 brothers from the Midwest have been extremely patient with us for vectoring off into the wild blue yonder.

There are others who have exercised patience as well, I think, including the moderator!

But we should certainly not allow this thread to give the impression to the casual visitor that the Midwest is full of mysogyny even if they do seem to have interesting notions concerning the fall....

[SpeakersCorner]

Peter,

Quaint sentiment? Trite? Ouch!

Actually, Peter, to call my argument trite is astonishing to me. I have given a biblical illustration of the cost God paid in putting on the flesh. Call it stupid, call it erroneous, call it heresy if you want, but trite? You've got to be kidding. This point touches the entire theme of the Bible, the very essence of what it meant for God to put on the flesh.

But if that's trite to you, I guess it is.


SC

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Peter, Quaint sentiment? Trite? Ouch!

Actually, Peter, to call my argument trite is astonishing to me. I have given a biblical illustration of the cost God paid in putting on the flesh. Call it stupid, call it erroneous, call it heresy if you want, but trite? You've got to be kidding. This point touches the entire theme of the Bible, the very essence of what it meant for God to put on the flesh.

SC, I think all kinds of inspirational views such as yours can stir us to worship Him, and inspire us to speak for Him. Let's forget all the demands for interpretational accuracies here. They bore me. They require boards and councils for approval, but lack the moving of the Spirit. They only speak to my head, not to my heart.

Hey, I'm not promoting gross error here, but to discover Christ, in new and unheard of ways, is "outlawed" only on that other forum.

Remember ... I'm the guy who has little interest in theological debate. Look at Peter's (no "double entendre" intended) first message in Acts 2 -- didn't he mess up the interpretation of Joel's prophecy? God will work that one out.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hey, I'm not promoting gross error here, but to discover Christ, in new and unheard of ways, is "outlawed" only on that other forum.

I concur.

We should feel free here to discuss all of the formerly forbidden topics (within reason, of course!) without having to initially satisfy all the doctrinal prerequisites of an official institution of any sort.

If someone feels to give an adjusting word, they should feel free to say that as well. We surely all need the balancing word from time to time.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Nell

OK Igs -- go for it. Mr. Moderator, can you move these posts over?

Can Mr. Moderator start the new thread instead? I wouldn't know where to put it.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Can Mr. Moderator start the new thread instead? I wouldn't know where to put it.

I kind of had the same problem with my ABC's thread, Igzy.

Mr. Moderator might need to start a new forum for us to take care of our Bible-based study and discussions beyond the canonical writings of Lee and Nee.

How about "Onward and Upward" as a title???

[Thankful Jane]

Originally Posted by YP0534

There are others who have exercised patience as well, I think, including the moderator!

Originally Posted by YP0534

But we should certainly not allow this thread to give the impression to the casual visitor that the Midwest is full of mysogyny even if they do seem to have interesting notions concerning the fall....

The topic we have been discussing on this tributary is, I imagine, of more interest to the corporal's descendants than it is the captain's [see post #114]. I realize I have posted a lion’s share of these posts, so I am sorry if I have belabored some of the points about Adam and Eve. The truth is that some of what I have been learning from the Bible about God's word to women over the last year has made me feel like a lifetime slave who discovered papers that said he and his relatives had never been slaves at all. It's hard to explain what this has been like.

I have more to say on the topic, having barely scratched the surface in this dialogue, but I think this topic is probably mostly of interest to those in Martha and Mary's house, so I will be more than happy to move further dialogue there. I don't think, apart from SC's calling out a few statements I made (many posts ago), I would have brought up this topic or said as much as I have.

So, to any who have had to exercise undue patience or been bothered or bored by all this, please accept my apology.

Thankful Jane

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

The topic we have been discussing on this tributary is, I imagine, of more interest to the corporal's descendants than it is the captain's [see post #114]. I realize I have posted a lion’s share of these posts, so I am sorry if I have belabored some of the points about Adam and Eve. The truth is that some of what I have been learning from the Bible about God's word to women over the last year has made me feel like a lifetime slave who discovered papers that said he and his relatives had never been slaves at all. It's hard to explain what this has been like.

I have more to say on the topic, having barely scratched the surface in this dialogue, but I think this topic is probably mostly of interest to those in Martha and Mary's house, so I will be more than happy to move further dialogue there. I don't think, apart from SC's calling out a few statements I made (many posts ago), I would have brought up this topic or said as much as I have.

So, to any who have had to exercise undue patience or been bothered or bored by all this, please accept my apology.

Thankful Jane

No need to apologize to me, for sure!

The side topic never got to the point that I could really sink my teeth into it but I was glad to see it going forward, even if I couldn't figure out why it was on this particular thread.

But since it didn't really involve me, I sure wasn't going to interrupt the flow.

I just know that Moderator generally likes to keep a tidy board, as do others.

And I did want to suggest that we might attend to keeping threads tidy for other reasons as well...

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Peter,

Quaint sentiment? Trite? Ouch!

Actually, Peter, to call my argument trite is astonishing to me. I have given a biblical illustration of the cost God paid in putting on the flesh. Call it stupid, call it erroneous, call it heresy if you want, but trite? You've got to be kidding. This point touches the entire theme of the Bible, the very essence of what it meant for God to put on the flesh.

But if that's trite to you, I guess it is.


SC

Well, SC, I can be a clumsy fellow and words in my hands can be blunt instruments which hit more than I mean to... So, accept my appologizes for the bristle in my post and allow me to rephrase with a bit more tact (still learning here)...

Here's what I value in using Adam as an analogy: IF Adam had full knowledge of what he was doing, and did it anyways in order to join his wife in her fallen position, then that was a tremendous decision and action: right or wrong, it is bold, romantic and profound.

But there's two problems with it: First, Adam's act had really really bad consequences. i can personally attest to the misery Adam brought into humankind (as we all can, on a daily basis). thus, his act - while beautiful and bold - was not very well thought out (yes, an understatement). In short, the beauty of his act was to stand with his mate regardless of consequence.

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.

But I guess that's really just an argument not to allow such analogies to go to far. Sorry, I've just grown so wary of metaphors, analogies and principles getting extended well beyond their Biblical scope.

I've said my piece. And that said, it is hardly my place to begrudge someone gleaning something from a picture that endears them to Christ and the love He displayed in emptying Himself and becoming fashioned as a man.

We can get manic on these boards sometimes, I suppose. I ask for you to pardon me my vinegar...

Grace to you,

Peter

[Old Rasputin]

We don't know what Adam's motives were for eating the apple. As best as I can tell, the idea that Adam had a noble motive for partaking of the forbidden tree originated with John Milton in Paradise Lost. I think it's an interesting theory, yet it is just as possible that he ate the fruit because he succumbed to temptation. After all, the Bible says it was pleasing to the eye.

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.

[Nell]

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.

OR,

Thanks for the info about Milton. That's interesting.

This is what happened to Eve that she became deceived:

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

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.

In her deception, Eve disobeyed God's command not to eat of the tree in the center of the garden. Specifically,

13 ... The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

It seems clear to me that deception and disobedience are more than suggestions that Eve sinned. These are the proof.

And again, how often is our disobedience based on our own deception...believing a wrong thought about God or God's word and taking action on it?

Nell

[Old Rasputin]

True, Nell. Eve transgressed God's command. I guess I meant whether Eve sinned in the sense of causing the fall of man. I don't think she did. Romans 5 is pretty straightforward in saying it was Adam's act that introduced sin and death to the world.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

True, Nell. Eve transgressed God's command. I guess I meant whether Eve sinned in the sense of causing the fall of man. I don't think she did. Romans 5 is pretty straightforward in saying it was Adam's act that introduced sin and death to the world.

Yipper--Nell

[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]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Well, SC, I can be a clumsy fellow and words in my hands can be blunt instruments which hit more than I mean to... So, accept my appologizes for the bristle in my post and allow me to rephrase with a bit more tact (still learning here)...

Peter,

I too can be an oaf with words as I probably was in my last post to you. We learn together.

Here's the thing: we often are brought closer together in fellowship with our brothers after we have erred. Now somehow, I think that's related to this whole issue.

God bless.

SC

[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]

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

[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