Alignment

[aineo]

I’ve often pointed to the difference in what God told Adam and what Adam told Eve, but if you get right down to it, Adam was there with Eve (as @Jim an Apostle stated). If he understood his role as the head, how could he let Eve go through with this right before his eyes, much less, how could he eat the fruit offered to him by Eve? Frankly, Adam totally dropped the ball, and though Eve isn’t off the hook for her sin in this, Adam bears the brunt of it.

 

[IshChayil]

Then look at Job.
Job 1:5
And when the days of the feast had run their course, Job would send and consecrate them, and he would rise early in the morning and offer burnt offerings according to the number of them all. For Job said, “It may be that my children have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts.” Thus Job did continually

I also love this about Job. I reread Job a few months ago and it struck me how wise he was to make offerings "just in case" on behalf of His children. We would do well to learn more about Job as for many college-goers it's the only book of the bible they're ever gonna read and it informs their entire opinion about G-d's justice (or lack -there-of) in their minds.
No mystery why this is THE book taught in world literature classes on campuses; unfairly removed from the greater context of scripture.

 

[steve]

he Bible says her husband was there with her. Adam should have intervened and not allowed Eve to be the test agent. Adam was ultimately responsible.

This is the nut.
She was deceived, but he allowed the deception to stand.
Numbers 30:3 (KJV) 3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, [being] in her father's house in her youth;
7 And her husband heard [it,] and held his peace at her in the day that he heard [it]: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard [it]; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.

 

[IshChayil]

This is the nut.
She was deceived, but he allowed the deception to stand.
Numbers 30:3 (KJV) 3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, [being] in her father's house in her youth;
7 And her husband heard [it,] and held his peace at her in the day that he heard [it]: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand.
8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard [it]; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her.

We don't really know what Adam was doing when Eve ate.
It's all about her in the first clause. She saw, she desired, she decided, and she took...

When I last spoke on this I asked the people "why did the Nachash (serpent / luminous one) go to Eve and not Adam?
Many possibilities present themselves. 1-Nachash may have gone to Adam many times already and failed every time.
Maybe Adam ignored the Nachash or just couldn't hear him.
Notice Eve thought she wasn't even supposed to touch the tree? I think Adam had further restricted her from touching it even so she wouldn't be tempted. This is a common wise Jewish practice to make a hedge around things.
We have to assume the wise serpent / luminous being had a reason to go to EVe and not to Adam and if Adam was indeed within ear shot then why not just go straight for the throat?

A thought just occurred to me now; what if Adam shows up; or wakes up; or whatever, sees Eve has already eaten.
She's doomed. He doesn't want to be alone again and he doesn't want to loose his love (imagine the bond between them? she's literally the last woman on Earth). So Adam decides to be doomed with her; at least they are together...

 

[andrew]

Adameo and Eveiet....

 

[Jim an Apostle]

She's doomed. He doesn't want to be alone again and he doesn't want to loose his love (imagine the bond between them? she's literally the last woman on Earth). So Adam decides to be doomed with her; at least they are together...

So Adam's sin becomes an act of Love? And, for that, he is punished... and his children are condemned to punishment and death? God becomes very heartless indeed.

Another concept that I think people get is that somehow God punished Adam for trying to be more like God. Again, I don't think that squares with the true nature of God. Adam's sin was not an act of love; neither, was it an attempt to become more like his loving Father. No! Adam was not deceived! Neither was God unjust. Adam's sin was the ultimate act of rebellion! He was not trying to become more like God, but rather like "god" (Satan) ...and God's punishment was correct!

Genesis 3:4-5
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: [5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I believe the rendering here is correct. Satan's offer was for Adam to join his side against God, and "be as gods." The confusion arises in this verse:

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

"of us" is the question. The "of us" is added by the translators. "The man is become as one..." One what?... is the question; and according to verse 5, it was as "god (s)..." (small g). Now the punishment fits the crime.

 

[Nikud]

Whether we beleive Adam was Present or not is kind of a mute point when it comes to accountability.

Romans 5:12

sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

1 Timothy 2:14

the woman was deceived and became a transgressor

1 Corinthians 15:22

as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive

1 Peter 3:7

Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered

Yes, Eve is culpable for her sins but, As the head of his house Adam is ultimately held responsible by God for her transgressions.

Just as we are accountable for the actions/inactions of those in our own households as well as our own. When we guide our families well their successes are ours. When we fail to lead them propertly thats on us. It doesnt absolve them of wrong doing but it is ultimately up to us to make sure that our families will is aligned with God's will to prevent them from wrong doing.

 

[andrew]

Right. On.

 

[steve]

I absolutely cannot stand the explanation that Adam found out after the fact and was the victim, having to heroically eat also in order to not be separated from her.
I heard that one so long ago that I think David was still ogling Bathsheba.

 

[windblown]

This may need its own thread, but I thought I'd mention it here.

Ooo, please start one.

 

[FollowingHim]

Even in Genesis, the punishment given to Adam is greater than the punishment given to Eve. Eve's punishment takes one verse to describe (3:16) and is solely directed at women. Adam's punishment takes three verses (17-19), is far more detailed, and finishes with death, which clearly affects all. Adam is the primary culprit from the start.
And this is vital for Christian theology - the last Adam cancels out the curse placed on the first Adam. No mention of Eve in this anywhere, her involvement is just a detail.

But I do think this is going down a rabbit-hole into a single illustration that can be a distraction from the primary point being made originally in this discussion. Thanks for the original post and comments Andrew, very thought-provoking and challenging.

 

[Mojo]

I also love this about Job. I reread Job a few months ago and it struck me how wise he was to make offerings "just in case" on behalf of His children. We would do well to learn more about Job as for many college-goers it's the only book of the bible they're ever gonna read and it informs their entire opinion about G-d's justice (or lack -there-of) in their minds.
No mystery why this is THE book taught in world literature classes on campuses; unfairly removed from the greater context of scripture.

Yup, read it in college too!
The sheer magnitude of the narrative makes it a classic even for atheists. We believers understand its complete implications, though.

 

[Mikki G.]

My parents always raised me to believe that once you are married your mind must change from "me" to "we" or "us". Once your married you have to think about the other or others in the relationship with you. You can't be singleminded or self centered anymore. Sure it seems much much simpler at times to always think "me, me, me" but the Bible says when a man and a woman marry, they go from two to "one flesh" they must work as a team and keep the lines of communication open or the relationship will dwindle and die. I try and think of my marriage as a whole and what my husband and daughter can gain from our family. I can't justify just thinking of me anymore. My family's comes first, always.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Adameo and Eveiet....

Nice.

 

[IshChayil]

Adameo and Eveiet....

hehe exactly. Not saying it went down that way but I've never heard it suggested even.
It reminds me of a Sting song about King David's love for Bathsheba "..though my kingdoms turn to sand and fall into the sea...I'm mad about you... mad about you"

 

[IshChayil]

Whether we beleive Adam was Present or not is kind of a mute point when it comes to accountability.

Romans 5:12...

So Adam's sin becomes an act of Love? And, for that, he is punished... and his children are condemned to punishment and death? God becomes very heartless indeed.

Another concept that I think people get is that somehow God punished Adam for trying to be more like God. Again, I don't think that squares with the true nature of God. Adam's sin was not an act of love; neither, was it an attempt to become more like his loving Father. No! Adam was not deceived! Neither was God unjust. Adam's sin was the ultimate act of rebellion! He was not trying to become more like God, but rather like "god" (Satan) ...and God's punishment was correct!

Genesis 3:4-5
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: [5] For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I believe the rendering here is correct. Satan's offer was for Adam to join his side against God, and "be as gods." The confusion arises in this verse:

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
"of us" is the question. The "of us" is added by the translators. "The man is become as one..." One what?... is the question; and according to verse 5, it was as "god (s)..." (small g). Now the punishment fits the crime.

Yeah fellas, I agree. I was just being a bit contrarian because in the Jewish world I've heard the idea that it's all Adam's fault a lot so I
find it fun to take the "minority" position that it's Chava's fault (Eve)
I see the difference in "sin" between Adam and Eve's is Eve was "beguiled" by the Nachash while Adam just agreed to eat when Eve gave it to him. We have no recorded resistance even. Also, Adam had a longer relationship with G-d and a lot of "facetime". Think how long it would take to name all the animals?

I do want to respond to just a couple things @Jim an Apostle wrote because they are interesting though may cause a thread fork.

Genesis 3:22
And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
"of us" is the question. The "of us" is added by the translators.

The translators did not add that "of us" it's in the Hebrew:
Gen 3:22a‮וַיֹּ֣אמֶר׀ יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֗ים הֵ֤ן הָֽאָדָם֙ הָיָה֙ כְּאַחַ֣ד מִמֶּ֔נּוּ לָדַ֖עַת טֹ֣וב וָרָ֑ע...
And Hashem G-d said "Look! The man became like one from among us, to know good and evil (everything)..."
As an aside, "good and evil" in Classical Hebrew is an idiom meaning "everything"
Anyway G-d is addressing the other spiritual beings who are with Him here; the other created beings of the universe. That's who the "us" is.

Jim you may like this takeaway to the verses you mentioned regarding the concept of "gods" is the way this word is used in Hebrew, אלהים it is not necessarily gods in the strict English understanding. It's often used more like "unearthly powers". In some contexts "god" just means a being not of Earth, i.e. without a body.
The verse which says "כי גדול ה' אל כל אלהים" "ki gadol Hashem al kol elohiym..." "For Hashem is greater than all the gods" is meaningless if the other "gods" are just idols. As one of my teachers is fond of saying: "My dog is greater than idols" so there is no glory being given to Hashem if the other "gods" are nothings.

 

[FollowingHim]

As an aside, "good and evil" in Classical Hebrew is an idiom meaning "everything"

That is an incredibly important piece of information, clarifies so much. The words "good and evil" make it sound like God didn't want them to know the difference between right and wrong, which is weird and causes all sorts of contortions as you try to explain it. You just answered the whole matter in one sentence.

 

[Jim an Apostle]

Anyway G-d is addressing the other spiritual beings who are with Him here; the other created beings of the universe. That's who the "us" is.

so the correct understanding is that Adam did not become or try to become like God but rather as a god.
"other spiritual being"

 

[andrew]

Even in Genesis, the punishment given to Adam is greater than the punishment given to Eve. Eve's punishment takes one verse to describe (3:16) and is solely directed at women. Adam's punishment takes three verses (17-19), is far more detailed, and finishes with death, which clearly affects all. Adam is the primary culprit from the start.
And this is vital for Christian theology - the last Adam cancels out the curse placed on the first Adam. No mention of Eve in this anywhere, her involvement is just a detail.

This raises an interesting question: What if Eve alone had eaten? Would Adam have been held responsible? If not, why not? If Eve had eaten and Adam chose not to, then what should he have done about Eve?

As men who fell in Adam and bear the penalty for our own sin as well, we have to notice that Christ didn't kill some animals and provide some skins to cover our nakedness, he became the sacrifice and the covering. Are we supposed to be a 'living sacrifice' that pays the penalty for and covers our wives? Is our trust and obedience something we do to earn Christ's love? Or is it a response to the great love and sacrifice of our Heavenly Father and his Son, Christ Jesus? And was that a 50/50, chicken-and-egg thing, where Christ does his bit while constantly reminding us to do our bit? Or were we dead in our trespasses and sins until God gave us new life?

And are we giving life to our wives, or merely demanding obedience?...

 

[cnystrom]

I was talking with the ladies this morning over coffee (our regular morning meeting before breakfast) about the chronic tension that exists in so many marriages between a husband who believes there is no limit to a wife's duty to submit or obey and a wife who believes that there are boundaries somewhere beyond which a husband's authority becomes abusive and illegitimate. (Obviously if both parties believe the same thing about the limits (or lack thereof) of a husband's authority, this is not a problem. There may be other problems and tensions (such as figuring out exactly where those boundaries are), but not this particular kind of chronic tension.)

Is it any different than the fact that children should obey their parents? I mean in general children should obey their parents, but it is not absolute. If the parents are evil, or doing something morally wrong you can't fault the children for not obeying. For some reason we struggle with drawing the line in wife obey your husband, but not the children obey your parents teaching.