...the serpent...said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 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.
Regarding the text on the fall of man in Genesis 3:1-7, there is something I have considered from time to time for 40 years. An older preacher friend brought it up when I was a young man. In the text, the transgression of Adam and Eve is taking the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:11). This theological thread runs through the Bible (see, e.g. Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians. 15:22; 1 Timothy 2:13-14).
If I remember correctly, the preacher asked whether Eve added to God’s word (or lied), in reference to her saying “neither shall ye touch it.” “Neither shall ye touch it” is not included in the restriction of Genesis 3:17 – “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Did Eve add to what God told Adam (or lie to the serpent). If so, wouldn’t this be a sin. In the end, this preacher sort of downplayed Eve’s claim with a bit of a humourous twist. He said, “Eve was not present when God gave the command to Adam – and that it was probably Adam who told her, saying, ‘Honey, don’t even touch it.’”
Others have suggested that Eve added to (neither shall ye touch it), subtracted from (“We may eat of the fruit of the trees” instead of “mayest freely eat,” and “lest ye die” instead of “shalt surely die”), and modified (“Ye shall not eat of it” instead of “thou shalt not eat of it”) God’s command. If adding to and taking from God’s word is a sin (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19), why was Eve not already in sin before she ever took the fruit?
I am not particularly troubled by this question, but find it somewhat intriguing. It seems a question worthy of legitimate scrutiny.
What are your thoughts? Thanks.
2 comments:
I do not know. I wish I did. I also find it an interesting question.
One proposed explanation: Adam was responsible for the whole human race (i.e., also for Eve). He was "with her" (Gen 3:6). It appears she added to God's words and thus sinned, but Adam was the "ultimate" sinner since he did not correct her.
I've also heard it preached that Adam's first sin was abdication of responsibility in being "with her," but not stopping her from eating the fruit, even though he was not deceived (1 Tim 2:14). Could it be that all of these actions are seen by our Lord as one since they are all related?
I know of nothing later in the Scriptures that says specifically that the eating was the sin, although Rom 5:19 says "one man's disobedience." If in order for there to be disobedience there would need to first be instruction, then it was the eating that is referred to as transgression/sin. However, if because of Adam's intimate knowledge of the Creator and His moral character, Adam was responsible even to reflect the moral character of God, then the purposeful mis-quotation done by the one for whom Adam was responsible would qualify as a transgression.
An aside: I have often thought on these verses:
1Jo 3:4 (KJV) Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
[In 1Jo 3:4 "the transgression of the law" is translated from ἡ ἀνομία, which can be understood as "the lawlessness."]
Ro 5:13 (KJV) (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Could it be that since "until the law sin was in the world," then sin is lawlessness in the broad sense of non-conformity to the moral character of God? That broad sense would include (1) non-conformity to God-given instruction (what we usually think of as "law"), which is in view in 1Jo 3:4. However, that proposed "broad sense" for the concept of sin would also include (2) non-conformity to God's moral character in any way, even if no specific rule was (yet) issued; that idea seems present in Rom 5:13.
Feel free, Brother Vaughn, to delete this or warn me if I've drifted too far from the original topic of your post.
Brother E. T. Chapman
Brother Chapman, thanks for the thoughtful comments that give us something more to consider. I guess I would say for the most part that I don't get too disturbed about what I cannot answer about this question and rest in the overarching explanation you mention: "Adam was responsible for the whole human race." I think that is clear in the Bible.
Thanks.
Post a Comment