Adam's Choice to Remain with Eve--The keeping of a commandment and blessing.

[ParkerD]

When Adam was asked if he had partaken of the forbidden fruit, we can observe his response: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” (Genesis 3:12)

Eve was not only a gift to Adam from God, but with this supernal, crowning gift of the creation came the commandments and understanding that they:

1–“Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it…” (Genesis 1:28)
2–“have dominion” (meaning stewardship to help the earth flourish)
3–“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24) This is far more than a physical “cleaving” and becoming “one flesh”. It is to gain a spiritual and communicative oneness also that brings joy to both partners, whereby they enhance each others’ abilities and unique gifts.
4–Eve was to be “an help meet for him.” God said that it “is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18)

Any notion that Adam was “choosing Eve over God” is simply not reading Genesis with any level of understanding, at all. How many ways did God need to say that Eve was to be with Adam and Adam was to be with Eve, for their mutual blessing?

Adam had a choice dilemma. He had indeed received the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit or he would die, but one observes that his decision was that the commandments from God relating to his being a support and a companion to Eve, and she to him, was regarded by Adam as the more important commandments to keep. This is evident from his decision not to be selfish and remain in the garden of Eden while Eve would die and be sent away from the garden of Eden. He said “gavest to be with me” as he told God why he partook of the forbidden fruit. If one reads the words, the words have deep meaning about his reasoning and his choice.

There are so many ramifications with the kinds of questions such as: “Is Adam’s choice to stay with Eve something God would reward? Didn’t Jesus make it clear that if you chose family over him, you were not worthy of him?” and “is he choosing Eve over God?”

Jesus Himself placed the union of Adam and Eve as an exemplary marriage–the prototypical marriage for all humankind. (See Matthew 19:4-6) Any notion that he regarded their marriage as something to be slighted in any way or something where Adam chose “Eve over God” is a notion that is not supported by Jesus’ words.

Any implied notion that one cannot “choose God and family” as joint blessings in one’s life is a sad commentary on a view of family. God can be placed at the center of a family’s devotion and of a couple’s devotion. They need not choose family over God, at all. They should always choose God, choose to obey God, but also choose to be loving and responsible in relationships with family including being just as supportive (willing to die even, in the case of the man in his marriage) as Adam was with Eve, his supernal “help meet” and supernal gift from God for his blessing throughout his life.

Peace to all readers. Have a wonderful day.

 

[praise_Jesus_1]

I wasn’t aware that people interpreted that passage as Adam choosing Eve over God. I was always taught that Adam was trying to shift the blame of his actions over to Eve.

 

[Lapell]

I wasn’t aware that people interpreted that passage as Adam choosing Eve over God. I was always taught that Adam was trying to shift the blame of his actions over to Eve.

Yeah, and maybe Adam thought he had no choice but to stay with Eve? Or maybe the things were settled when God gave His verdict (or stated the actual state of things) and Adam regretted his outburst against God about Eve? Hard to say… Still, they lived quite a long life together after that, so I take it they must have reconciled.

 

[adstrinity]

"23 And the Lord God sent him out of the paradise of pleasure, to till the earth from which he was taken. 24 And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

God cast Adam out. The text does not say he chose to leave with Eve. This doens’t even mention eve, God cast Adam out.

Second, Adam responded, “The woman You put here with me…” Not only was he blaming Eve for what happened, he was blaming God for what happened. He was implying God was at fault because God put that woman there who did this.

 

[ParkerD]

Yeah, and maybe Adam thought he had no choice but to stay with Eve? Or maybe the things were settled when God gave His verdict (or stated the actual state of things) and Adam regretted his outburst against God about Eve? Hard to say… Still, they lived quite a long life together after that, so I take it they must have reconciled.

Lapell,
Thanks for giving Adam a little bit of the benefit of the doubt.

The Douay Rheims translation of Genesis 3 is interesting to note:

12 And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat. 14 And the Lord God said to the serpent: Because thou hast done this thing, thou art cursed among all cattle, and beasts of the earth: upon thy breast shalt thou go, and earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life. 15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

16 To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee. 17 And to Adam he said: Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.

It could be looked at that Adam was being straightforward about the situation. Eve gave him the fruit after she had partaken, and he (knowing she was “to be his companion”) ate also. Because he had “hearkened to the voice of thy wife,” the earth was cursed and Adam was going to have a consequence of having to labour and toil in order to eat. There is not really a sense of an “outburst against God about Eve,” in my opinion through looking at the DR translation. God didn’t rebuke him other than to say in so many words, “because you hearkened to Eve and ate of the fruit, you have these consequences.”

Thanks, and have a good evening.

 

[Lapell]

Lapell,
Thanks for giving Adam a little bit of the benefit of the doubt.
The Douay Rheims translation of Genesis 3 is interesting to note:

12 And Adam said: The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And the Lord God said to the woman: Why hast thou done this? And she answered: The serpent deceived me, and I did eat.
There is not really a sense of an “outburst against God about Eve,” in my opinion

Tell me, ParkerD, if if it was not an outburst against God about Eve, why did Adam have to say: “The woman, whom thou gavest me to be my companion, gave me of the tree (…)”? Why didn’t he just say, “The woman” since there was no other woman then (she was the first and only one at the time, according to the biblical story)???

 

[Lapell]

Why did Adam have to add, “whom thou gavest me to be my companion”, tell me?

 

[adstrinity]

Exactly. He said, “The woman gave it to me,” but, no, he included God.

Eve blamed the devil, Adam blamed God. …And just like today, nobody accepted the blame on oneself.

 

[ParkerD]

Why did Adam have to add, “whom thou gavest me to be my companion”, tell me?

Couldn’t Adam be explaining his reasoning here? They were friends, after all. Adam considered God to be his friend. He was being honest.

God had given him Eve to be his companion. God had told him she was a “help meet” for him, and had been formed from his rib so she was as much a part of him as his own rib.

Adam was in essence saying “Dear God, my Friend whom I love, thou gavest me this woman to be my companion. I decided thy gift of her to me was pretty important, because thou didst make it seem pretty important that I value her companionship. So, I did what I did because of that companionship which You gave me.”

 

[Jay53]

I also think that verse 17 indicates that God is rebuking Adam for choosing to listen to his wife over obeying His commandment to not eat of the fruit. There is no indication that God is pleased that Adam was making some kind of choice to obey other commandments (i.e. to be fruitful and multiply) and disobey that one (eating the fruit).

Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18"Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field;
19By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”

 

[ParkerD]

I also think that verse 17 indicates that God is rebuking Adam for choosing to listen to his wife over obeying His commandment to not eat of the fruit. There is no indication that God is pleased that Adam was making some kind of choice to obey other commandments (i.e. to be fruitful and multiply) and disobey that one (eating the fruit).

Jay53,
I don’t think of those consequences in the verses you cited, as being “bad”. I think they were “good” consequences that lead to growth. (But then, I like work and I don’t mind “tribulation” since I can see the good that comes from it.) “Cursed is the ground because of you” is not necessarily a bad consequence. In the KJV, it says “for your sake.” This can mean “for your benefit” or “for your growth.” It makes sense to me that God would want humankind to grow from making hard choices in life and from working and not having an easy life. It also makes sense to me that God would let Adam and Eve choose whether they were willing to be placed into a situation where those conditions would be present.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
I don’t think of those consequences in the verses you cited, as being “bad”. I think they were “good” consequences that lead to growth. (But then, I like work and I don’t mind “tribulation” since I can see the good that comes from it.) “Cursed is the ground because of you” is not necessarily a bad consequence. In the KJV, it says “for your sake.” This can mean “for your benefit” or “for your growth.” It makes sense to me that God would want humankind to grow from making hard choices in life and from working and not having an easy life. It also makes sense to me that God would let Adam and Eve choose whether they were willing to be placed into a situation where those conditions would be present.

You think God was rewarding Adam for his disobedience? That death (you are dust and unto dust you shall return) was a reward for his disobedience? What parent rewards their child for wrongdoing?

(And yes, I know that the resurrection of the body would not occur without death, but I certainly don’t believe that Adam’s disobedience was part of the original plan. I think God gave us good out of the bad simply because He loves us.)

 

[ParkerD]

You think God was rewarding Adam for his disobedience? That death (you are dust and unto dust you shall return) was a reward for his disobedience? What parent rewards their child for wrongdoing?

(And yes, I know that the resurrection of the body would not occur without death, but I certainly don’t believe that Adam’s disobedience was part of the original plan. I think God gave us good out of the bad simply because He loves us.)

Jay53,

“Reward” would certainly not be the right word. God was giving them the consequences of their disobedience. They had been told that one of those consequences would be that they would die.

If you believe God is truly omniscient and omnipotent, then knowing in advance that Satan would tempt them and Eve would desire to be wise and thus partake of the fruit, and that Adam would understand the commandment he had been given to be a companion to Eve for their benefit and for having posterity, then why would God have death as a consequence for eating some fruit?

What parent tells their child, “If you make a wrong choice, you are going to die because of it”–when the Parent placed the child into the circumstance and knew their personality and had the complete power to give whatever consequence was appropriate for a wrong choice by their child?

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,

“Reward” would certainly not be the right word. God was giving them the consequences of their disobedience. They had been told that one of those consequences would be that they would die.

If you believe God is truly omniscient and omnipotent, then knowing in advance that Satan would tempt them and Eve would desire to be wise and thus partake of the fruit, and that Adam would understand the commandment he had been given to be a companion to Eve for their benefit and for having posterity, then why would God have death as a consequence for eating some fruit?

What parent tells their child, “If you make a wrong choice, you are going to die because of it”–when the Parent placed the child into the circumstance and knew their personality and had the complete power to give whatever consequence was appropriate for a wrong choice by their child?

That doesn’t make any sense. You can just as easily ask, why did God even give them the choice or temptation to begin with, knowing that they would be tempted and knowing their personality what choice they would make. God expected Adam’s obedience - not his disobedience in order to fulfill His plan. You seem to be trying to say that God deliberately set Adam up to sin in order to fulfill His plan - that somehow God approved of Adam’s disobedience and sin because it would lead to what He originally planned.

 

[larkin31]

There is no indication in the text of why Adam chose to eat the fruit, nor even that he struggled in anyway with the decision.

But an unabashedly naked woman–and the only woman around for miles–offers you some sweet fruit from the “naughty” tree…???

The rest is conjecture.

 

[SteveVH]

There is no indication in the text of why Adam chose to eat the fruit, nor even that he struggled in anyway with the decision.

But an unabashedly naked woman–and the only woman around for miles–offers you some sweet fruit from the “naughty” tree…???

The rest is conjecture.

Sorry larkin, but that is absolutley ridiculous. There was notning “naughty” about Adam and Eve’s relationship. God had given them to each other. There is no conjecture exept on your part. I’m sorry if I’m not giving you a charitable answer, but please. You are trying to place your own understanding above 2000 years of study by some very brilliant theologians exploring this same question. I’ll put my money on the Church’s conclusions.

 

[larkin31]

Sorry larkin, but that is absolutley ridiculous. There was notning “naughty” about Adam and Eve’s relationship. God had given them to each other. There is no conjecture exept on your part. I’m sorry if I’m not giving you a charitable answer, but please. You are trying to place your own understanding above 2000 years of study by some very brilliant theologians exploring this same question. I’ll put my money on the Church’s conclusions.

???

I was making a funny, and I called the tree “naughty,” not the relationship.

Who here gave a Church’s conclusion? And what was my “conjecture”? Adam is offered the fruit (without comment) and eats it (without comment) in one sentence. Anything one adds to that scenario is conjecture (eg interpretation).

 

[YADA]

Adam was present when Satan [the ancient serpnt] approached Eve … Adam was a witness to the entire exchange …

Adam failed in ‘protecting’ both the Garden and Eve from the Serpent - a charge given to him by God …

Both Eve and Adam ate of the forbidden fruit …

Adam blamed Eve and God for having eaten of the fruit … and Eve stated clearly that the Serpent beguiled [tricked] her … Both Adam and Eve lackd faith in God … I am not the greatest in ancient Hebrew leaving that for those that actually study this … what I am told is that the passage - literally translated would read "surely you wont die - die [or die the death] … which probably means that the ancient serpent [the dragon] was probably a scary creature to appear in Eden … Adam feared for his life not trusting God …

Thus your question could also be … Why did Eve stay with Adam after Adam failed to protect her from the Serpent and allowed her to be ‘bequiled’?..

 

[larkin31]

Adam was present when Satan [the ancient serpnt] approached Eve … Adam was a witness to the entire exchange …

Adam failed in ‘protecting’ both the Garden and Eve from the Serpent - a charge given to him by God …

Both Eve and Adam ate of the forbidden fruit …

---

Thus your question could also be … Why did Eve stay with Adam after Adam failed to protect her from the Serpent and allowed her to be ‘bequiled’?..

Indeed. Adam was indeed right there. Good points.

 

[SteveVH]

???

I was making a funny, and I called the tree “naughty,” not the relationship.

Who here gave a Church’s conclusion? And what was my “conjecture”? Adam is offered the fruit (without comment) and eats it (without comment) in one sentence. Anything one adds to that scenario is conjecture (eg interpretation).

Sorry if I misinterpreted your “funny”. Actually, it was pretty funny. Yada is exactly right. Adam was with her, but he was hiding, watching from a distance as Eve was falling into temptation. The serpent, (Nahash) was not just a little snake in the tree. He was a formidable creature threatening their lives. Their sin was not calling on God to protect them as well as placing more value on their physical existence than their fidelity to God. Adam had been charged with guarding the Garden and had failed. Dr. Scott Hahn does a great job of explaining all of this in his book “First Comes Love”. Basically he states that Satan was physically threatening them with death, not just tricking them into eating a piece of fruit. But the death they would suffer if they ate of the tree was the second death (spiritual death) (you will die-die). I would highly recommend Dr. Hahn’s book, it makes a lot of sense.

ParkerD’s interpretation of this scenario is bizarre, a perfect example of approaching scripture with a preconceived notion and then twisting and bending it in an attempt to make it fit Joseph Smith’s make-believe story.