Why did sin enter the world through Adam?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danny69
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(1 Tim 2:14) And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Click to expand...
another scripture that may be giving us a clue as to Adam’s greater culpability compared to Eve — though I still think that quasimodo was absolutely correct in pointing out that “sin entered the world through Adam”, and explaining why it is given to Adam’s name and not Eve’s name, even though technically, or better yet, chronologically Eve may have sinned first.

MonFrere
 
My Brother,
The bell ringer makes a good point. Commentaries often point out the Hebrew adam can mean mankind in some verses and ‘Adam’ - the proper name of one individual - in other verses.

I agree, the original sin meets the criteria.

However, I believe Eve also meets the three criteria and is culpable.

She knew it was a serious matter - “God said not to eat or even touch/reach.” it is interesting she has amended the original command with touch/reach (the Hebrew can mean reach as well as touch).
She had full knowledge of the seriousness - “… lest we will die.” Granted, as is popular today, one can argue this ‘full knowledge’ aspect by asking ‘what is full knowledge?’ ‘is it possible to have full knowledge of anything?’ etc. Essentially, these questions are dodges unless you are law student - I guess. But sticking to the narrative, I believe the author attempts to convey Eve possessed full knowledge by her complete and amended recitation of the command. She had reflected on the original and added to it!
Next, and very interesting from a literary p.o.v., after the lie is delivered the author takes us inside Eve’s thinking process as she contemplates the fruit. The main point of this is to demonstrate the absence of coercion - she wants it. The full consent criteria is satisfied. For an ancient text the psychological insight is modern in approach. There isn’t a silly good shoulder angel vs. bad shoulder angel debate for example.

The ancient writers knew human nature all too well. Our understanding of the working of sin really hasn’t changed much from this ancient example.

The insight in these ancient narratives accounts for their never ending ability to fascinate.

Again, it’s interesting that the ‘shame effect’ doesn’t kick in until both have eaten. This, in a mysterious way I’m sure, speaks to the union between the man and woman. Maybe our modern bias for individuality lessens our ability to grasp it. Mankind cannot be man or woman, but must be man and woman.

Nice chat,

Peter K
 
MyBrother,
I forgot to add this before I posted. I believe the very conversation we are having about the nature of sin is exactly the theological inquiry the ancient writer hoped to generate in his listeners and readers - more so that ‘was it a fig or an apple?’

Peter K
 
PeterK said:
However, I believe Eve also meets the three criteria and is culpable.
Click to expand...
And that’s logically entirely possible to. It does seem to me, from Paul perspective in 1 Tim, that Adam was MORE culpable than Eve because Adam wasn’t deceived where Eve was. But you are right - this doesn’t eliminate the possibility that the sin of each was mortal. I think this is the point where a more educated individual needs to bring some clarity.

MonFrere
 
MonFrere,
Your dialog has really sparked my reflection.
One extremely unique characteristic of Adam and Eve’s sin regards the nature of their relationship with God. This relationship was not sullied by sin like ours. It is probably not possible for us to understand the nature of this relationship, but we can, at the very least, say the two of them had an awareness and comprehension of God that far exceeds our own. The point is this; it was within this heightened awareness, this ‘closer’ relationship with God that they committed their sin. None of us have done that - bad as we are. We’ve all sinned against the ‘invisible’ God, Adam and Eve sinned against the ‘visible’ God. Of course the text does not say either actually saw God, but you get my point, they were very, very, very close to God. Maybe this unique characteristic provides an insight as to why they were jointly culpable and why their sin was universally applied to all mankind.

interesting.

Peter K
 
ckempston said:
A few possible explanations, which may or may not be totally intellectually satisfying, and could probably be expanded:
  1. Adam and Eve were “one flesh”, and the sin of one or both was treated as the sin of each individually.
  2. Adam, as the leader, was held responsible for the spiritual state of his entire family.
  3. Adam had the command directly from God, prior to Eve’s creation (see Genesis 2), Eve had the command second-hand, and so Adam was held “more” responsible (this concept of teachers/leaders being held more accountable is also taught in the NT).
  4. If you look at the story, Adam was with Eve when the serpent deceived her. It was a failure of leadership.
There are probably many variations of the above explanations and each have some overlap with the others and maybe it’s a combination of all of them.
Click to expand...
I like this list, with the emphasis on Adam not restraining Eve from sinning, thus committing a mental sin before Eve’s actual sin. The sin was a mental sin, to be sure, it was that Adam and Eve “became like gods” and decided what was right and wrong instead of doing what God had commanded.
 
Crumpy said:
I like this list, with the emphasis on Adam not restraining Eve from sinning, thus committing a mental sin before Eve’s actual sin. The sin was a mental sin, to be sure, it was that Adam and Eve “became like gods” and decided what was right and wrong instead of doing what God had commanded.
Click to expand...
I like it too, it makes sense, I think…is there an authoritative source for these ideas?
 
Here we come to the theme of women priests,who cannot represent human kind but only woman kind - for Eve was taken out of Adam - women only have the x chromosones whilst man has both x and y - so thats why - twinc
 
twinc said:
Here we come to the theme of women priests,who cannot represent human kind but only woman kind - for Eve was taken out of Adam - women only have the x chromosones whilst man has both x and y - so thats why - twinc
Click to expand...
Excellent point.
 
Hi! Can someone help me understand something? I accept that sin entered the world through Adam and Eve, but I have a hard time accepting the doctrine of Original Sin. Every bible-believing, Christ following church teaches that we are all sinners because of Adam and Eve, but how can this be true? Ezekiel 18:20 says, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.” It seems to me that God is saying that we are not sinners because of Adam and Eve, but because of our own choosing. It also seems to me that God is saying that we are not guilty of the sin that was committed by Adam and Eve. Also Jesus said we must become like little children in order to enter the kingdom of Heaven and the bible says elsewhere that no sin can enter into Heaven. I guess it could be argued that once we accept God’s salvation, our sins are acquitted, but then what about those babies who die before they grow up? Do they go to hell because they were “born sinners” and couldn’t accept God’s salvation (as a result of being babies and not knowing or understanding God’s salvation at the time)? Also, at what age does a child become accountable for his or her sins? As far as I know the bible doesn’t say at what age a person becomes accountable for their sins. Finally, how can people say that we are born sinners when the bible clearly says otherwise?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top