I've heard it said that sin entered the world when Adam disobeyed and ate of the apple. However, it was Eve who disobeyed and ate first. Why is it not said said that sin entered the world when Eve disobeyed? If sin entered the world after Eve ate, then what was it that compelled Eve to eat in the first place?
Apples 'n Stuff
- Thread starter LearningToLetGo
- Start date
Eve was not yet made when God told Adam he could not eat of that tree. Adam told Eve they could not eat of that tree. I believe this is why Satan spoke to Eve and not to Adam. It is letter of the law versus intent of the law, letter of the law says Adam can't eat of the tree but never said Eve couldn't. Intent of the law says that neither of them could. Eve disobeyed her husband (her equal) whereas Adam disobeyed God (his superior), thus "by one man sin entered the world." as sin is disobeying or rebelling against God.
If I may, I'd like to interject something here:
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
This is the case as to why Paul pointed out God's order in the family and the Church. If Eve had simply been disobedient, then the current order would have no basis in that context, but because of Eve being more easily deceived, the serpent worked on her rather than Adam.
Adam is the one who was disobedient, not Eve.
Now, where it can be said that someone who is deceived is still guilty of disobedience after having been told to not do something, then, yes. However, the Lord's own inspiration in the writing of the biblical texts focused upon her having been deceived above disobedience as the charge laid down against her, which is highly significant dare we give all this some thought.
MM
It should also be noted that Adam's disobedience was all the more serious because, unlike Eve, he was not deceived into eating the fruit. Perhaps that is why his guilt is amplified over that of Eve.
It is apparent that Eve was deceived but it's also mentioned that Adam was with her at the time. Why do we not conclude that Adam, also was deceived? In other words, why be more lenient to Eve? Also, why would we expect someone who had never known guile to have any capacity to defend against it?
You make a good point. The couple was basically defenseless against the serpent's wiles. However, one principle of human justice is that guilt may be mitigated by circumstances, but it cannot be negated. If imperfect human justice operates in this manner, how much more would the perfect justice of God reflect such a principle? In fact, God did apply some degree of mitigation to the couple but not to the serpent.
One thing must also be noted. Eve added the words "or touch" to God’s instructions. The lesson we can draw from Eve's situation is that we should never add anything to God's Word when applying it to our lives.
Last edited:
Deception isn't necessarily leniency. Also, I'm not so sure that we can assume "with her" has the precise meaning that Adam was in close proximity when the serpent was addressing Eve with half truths. The serpent was correct when he told her that their eyes would be opened, even though the rest was mostly false. That's how so many are deceived today to join cults. The mixture of truth with falsehoods is a powerful tool of persuasion, as you know.
MM
For clarity, I reiterate the verses quoted above, which speak loud volumes to the deception versus disobedience:
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The charge for having been deceived is a serious one. Such a charge points out that the one deceived was not on guard as he or she should have been. Eve disobeyed Adam, which was disobedience to God, with deception as the door through which the disobedience entered.
Remember Uzzah? In his having touched the ark, contrary to the express commandments from the Lord, he put his hand to the ark on the basis of good intentions, and was struck dead regardless. The basis of Eve's deception, rather than good intentions, was perhaps the greed for wanting to be AS God by eating that fruit. That has the ring of remembrance as to why Satan fell...
Adam was not deceived. Eve was deceived.
MM
2 Corinthians 11:3 But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.
The charge for having been deceived is a serious one. Such a charge points out that the one deceived was not on guard as he or she should have been. Eve disobeyed Adam, which was disobedience to God, with deception as the door through which the disobedience entered.
Remember Uzzah? In his having touched the ark, contrary to the express commandments from the Lord, he put his hand to the ark on the basis of good intentions, and was struck dead regardless. The basis of Eve's deception, rather than good intentions, was perhaps the greed for wanting to be AS God by eating that fruit. That has the ring of remembrance as to why Satan fell...
Adam was not deceived. Eve was deceived.
MM
Hello Dave F.;
No doubt you probably have taught Genesis in your Bible study. Could you please clarify the letter of the law and the intent of the law in what you believe?
The letter of the law is a profound teaching of God's purpose of obedience, but early in Genesis 3 the letter of the law was not yet introduced so the intent of the law would not have it's place, yet.
I may be wrong. I think I understand what you are saying but want to be clear.
God bless you, brother.
But this leads to my point: Eve was deceived. Since this was before sin entered the world that means the ability of the snake to lie and the ability of Eve to be deceived are aspects of something other than sin. So what was that?
Ahh, now THAT is indeed the question. LTLG, I've pondered this before, and some things came to mind on the basis of what we're told, AND what scripture does NOT say in that text of Genesis:
* Adam and Eve were created without sin because of their lack of knowledge of good and evil, and so they were therefore NOT like unto One of the Three in the Trinity.
* Adam and Eve did not inhabit glorified bodies given that Adam was formed from the dust, and Eve from Adam.
* They were not perfect, because they had to be told what NOT to eat of in the garden, so they did not "...know as we are known," as is stated in 1 Corinthians 13:12 "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
* Adam and Eve, although innocent, were prone to sin, for which the Lord knew would result from His having placed that tree in the garden, AND the potential for sin to be accomplished in the lives of the two, AND His allowing that serpent into the garden.
That list could go on and on, but suffice it to say that Adam and Eve, given that they were indeed capable of deception and flagrant disobedience AND passing off blame onto another, especially onto God, there was a tremendous element of inferiority in them both whereby they could stoop to such depths of depravity and deceit.
In other words, Sunday school materials in those classes where they paste cotton on bunny tails, they imply something that's just not the reality. Although the taint of sin and resulting death in their bodies did not come about until after they ate of that fruit, they still had the capacity for doing that which was imperfect, less than God, and downright worthy of death. Had that not been the case, they would not have fallen. They had free moral agency, and chose the low road.
Were it all to start over again, I personally would not wish any other outcome than what is. It's in this condition of sin that we are tested, and where the sheep are distinguished from the goats rather than to have a people not tested populating the streets and the very dwelling place of the Lord.
MM
Satan tempted in disguise that over Adam and Eve. They fell into temptation and that is when sin entered the world. God knew beforehand but it really saddened him when sin entered into the world. How Adam and Eve blamed each other but both were indeed to blame. And knowing Jesus would be sent on the way before He was even born when the first sin hit the world.
Are we then to say Adam and Eve had a sin nature but up to this moment had not yet sinned?
Weeeeellll, not exactly. The sin nature was/is deadly, and they were not yet on the path of death until AFTER that nature took hold of them, corrupting the cells in their bodies, which is what brings on the death of these vessels.
MM
It's a conundrum alright.
I am saying that God did not tell Eve she could not eat from the tree, He only told Adam that he could not. Adam told Eve that God said we can't eat of that tree. Adam was with Eve when Satan tempted her. I used to read the question as "DID God say you can't eat of the tree?" asking if God actually said it, however, as I began studying the word and thought about it, since Adam was there with her he certainly would have spoke up. So why was he silent? I then asked a different question with the exact same words in their same order by changing the accent from the word did to the word you, so now the question becomes "Did God say YOU can't eat from the tree?" This would silence Adam because God only told Adam that he could not eat from it and they being curious listened to the words of Satan and the rest is history.
Agreed.
Uh, oh! If I'm understanding your track of reasoning, I'm thinking that I see a potential for a syllogistic fallacy.
For those who don't know what that is:
"When logical fallacies occur in the syllogisms of deductive reasoning. This occurs with a reference to something general, and then makes a conclusion about something more specific." [https://www.logicalfallacies.org/]
I say this because the English translations tend to give impressions about meaning that is sometimes too open-ended, and therefore leaves much room for assumption and presumptions.
Where it's true that the translated text reads that Adam was "with" Eve when she gave the fruit to him to eat, that doesn't necessarily mean that he was with her during the conversation with the serpent. I'm not saying you and the others here are wrong, per se, but rather that it's very easy to inject meaning into the text.
For illustration, although my wife is in another state right now, I am "with her"...in that she is my wife. Additionally, if she prepares a meal for me, and then gives to me to eat what she had prepared, that doesn't necessarily mean I was in the kitchen with her during the preparations and conversations she may have had with others in the kitchen.
Not trying to be argumentative, just casting into the lot another possibility in an instance where the text may be a bit more vague than what seems apparent on the surface.
MM
It is possible that "with her" means he was elsewhere, it is also possible it means just what it says. I had read a book called wild at heart, the author claimed that Adams sin was his silence (I completely disagree with this thought as I believe that if silence was his sin the bible would have said so.) but it made me take a deeper look into why Adam said nothing. I have taken the bible literally that Adam was there with Eve. I always appreciate your input and I admit I may be wrong.
Are we to believe that Adam was ignorant of what he was given to eat until after the fact when it was too late?
No. I'm not suggesting that. There is so much potential gap that can encapsulate so much that can transpire between the words of the account, and so speculation in any directions is just that...speculation.
MM