Eve Misunderstood: How Eve was the First Victim of Original Sin

[RD_Miksa]

Good Day to All,

I would love to get some feedback on an article I have just written entitled “Eve Misunderstood: How Eve was the First Victim of Original Sin.” Since the article is over four thousand words, I have just included the summary below with a link to my blog if anyone is interested in reading further.

ARTICLE SUMMARY: The following article challenges the common interpretation of the Garden of Eden narrative by illustrating how the Christian doctrine of Original Sin is incompatible with the belief that Eve sinned against God in the Garden of Eden. In essence, the article explains that either Eve sinned against God in Eden and the doctrine of Original Sin is false or the doctrine of Original Sin is true, but therefore, Eve could not have sinned. The aim of the article is to provide support for the doctrine of Original Sin through an actual Biblical example of its transmission while also alleviating some of the misogyny that has often been thrust upon Eve due to her misinterpreted role as “temptress”.

miksasmusings.blogspot.com/2008/12/eve-misunderstood-how-eve-was-first.html

Thank you.

RD Miksa

 

[Todd_Easton]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.
Here’s my take on these words…
Since figurative language is used, we should not press the details of the account of the fall beyond the underlying truth. The Original Sin is considered a single fault freely committed by both our first parents, a corporate sin.

Perhaps the corporate nature of the Original Sin has something to do with what it says in Genesis 2:24, “they shall be one flesh.”

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think Original Sin was Adam’s eating of the apple. Note that God condemns him for eating it and Eve for causing him to eat it. Also, someplace St Paul notes that sin came through one man.

I have seen speculation that if only Eve had eaten of the apple she would have been punished but not all their descendants.

Also, I have seen speculation [Scott Hahn?] that Adam was present during Eve’s temptation and failed his duty to intervene.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The article says

The events are clear: when Eve eats from the fruit nothing occurs, but when Adam eats, they are both awakened to their wrong-doing.

But you can’t assume that from the text.:

When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked…. (Gen. 3:6-7, NASB, emphasis added)

For all we know they ate at roughly the same time, and the effects of original sin happened hours or days later.

 

[Maranatha]

I think Original Sin was Adam’s eating of the apple. Note that God condemns him for eating it and Eve for causing him to eat it. Also, someplace St Paul notes that sin came through one man.

In the very first chapter of Genesis it says Gen. 1.27: God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

Notice how the text explained that man was created as male and female in the image of God. It is very specific to explain that man is male and female. Here it explains that together they are made in the image of God.

 

[Maranatha]

The article says

The events are clear: when Eve eats from the fruit nothing occurs, but when Adam eats, they are both awakened to their wrong-doing. But you can’t assume that from the text.:

This was the opinion of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as explained in his book “Introduction of Christianity.” As he explained it, moral theology would assume that since Eve was tricked in to eating the apple she would not have been fully culpable. Once She ate the apple she knew better then to give the apple to Adam. Also she did not trick Adam in to eating. Therefore Adam sinned upon the eating where Eve sinned upon the giving.

In the writings of Catholic feminist Edith Stein she speculated that the tree and apple were actually a metaphor for a sexual sin. The Jewish culture would have been reticent regarding detailed explanations of sexual sin. Since directly after eating the apple, they noticed they were naked, the details of the actual sin, in her opinion, could be assumed.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

In the very first chapter of Genesis it says Gen. 1.27: God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.

Notice how the text explained that man was created as male and female in the image of God. It is very specific to explain that man is male and female. Here it explains that together they are made in the image of God.

But note that St Paul is contrasting the man Adam and the man Jesus.

Therefore as sin came into the world through** one** man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned . . .For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many

Romans 5:12, 15

 

[thistle]

I think Original Sin was Adam’s eating of the apple. Note that God condemns him for eating it and Eve for causing him to eat it. Also, someplace St Paul notes that sin came through one man.

I have seen speculation that if only Eve had eaten of the apple she would have been punished but not all their descendants.

Also, I have seen speculation [Scott Hahn?] that Adam was present during Eve’s temptation and failed his duty to intervene.

Slightly off topic but neither Adam nor Eve ate an apple. They ate the fruit from the tree. Scripture does not say what type of fruit it was.

 

[AndyF]

RD:

These verses show us that Eve needed to be actively deceived before she would even break Adam’s command not to eat from the tree. And lest we think …

Actually I wonder if Eve shouldn’t receive a re-trial.

There is another more overlying puzzle that needs solving. Take a perspective from the judicial standpoint. Seeking cases prior to this case where original sin could be applicable, we are taken back in time to the fall where Satan tempts the lessor angels in the hierarchy. Aquinas is quick to find a technicality to exclude culpability in the assignment of further candidates for stigmatization. Instead of finding guilt on pertinent aspects of the case namely that “intelligent beings can persuade or influence others to sin regardless of genus”, he states that Satan’s sin could not be transferred to all the angels because they were **not the same species.

**So before we read further we know that attributes of beings are a barrier to stigmatization, and not the potential to be tempted has one would expect. Then we go on to the Garden of Eden scenario. It occurred to me that not only was Eve(or Adam) not of the same species has Satan, but even less a species has the angels were to him.

One gets the feeling there is a jump to detract at this point and rush to astigmatism of the human species. There is an urgency to throw a blanket over the fact, and get on with it and not interfere with a process that by the facts gives the impression that it was desired.

There is also an ally to this defense that itself is quashed. The physical feature or attribute of Eve/Adam is that the capability to propagate is considered a fault as it applies to original sin, and not a positive. A defense counsel would use this fact has an appeal in favor, not a negative. So one doesn’t miss the obvious fact that an attribute of angels saves them, but an attribute of man facilitates a process against him. A defense counsel in minutes could make this a winning case.

So the original sin problem isn’t resolved, and I can’t see where Eve could not be exempt from culpability *by default. *

AndyF

 

[RD_Miksa]

Hello All,

Thank you for all the comments. In the end, the crux of my argument rests on a few key points which are obviously elaborated in my article:

1. Eve is made from Adam’s rib, thus Adam is, in essence, her progenitor and his original sin can be transmitted to her;
2. Eve eats the forbidden fruit first, but the eyes of both Adam and Eve are not opened till after Adam eats. If Eve was given the command by God, then their eyes would have been opened the moment that Eve ate the fruit.
3. We are told throughout various scriptures that the first sin that came into the world came through one man and that one man was Adam. This reinforces Point 2 in that it supports the assertion that Eve could not have received the command not to eat the fruit from God or else the first sin would have been hers. Sin would have entered the whole when she ate the fruit first or was tempted or tempted Adam, but instead it only came after Adam ate the fruit.
4. Eve is, however, still ejected from the Garden even though she did not sin against God. Thus, she is ejected because she inherited Adam’s Original Sin.

Thank you again for all your comments. If you would like the full article and others, here is the blog address (I changed it):

radosmiksa.blogspot.com/

RD Miksa

 

[Maranatha]

So your thesis is that the “You” in Gen. 3:3 refers to Adam only as in “you the sigular.” Does this apply even though in Gen. 2:2, Eve understands the command to cover the “We” of Adam and Eve.

Gen. 3:
2 The woman answered the serpent: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; 3 it is only about the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden that God said, ‘You shall not eat it or even touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman: "You certainly will not die!

I wonder if the “you” in the original Greek (Septuagint) and Hebrew translations refers to you plural or you singular.