-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
their eyes were opened
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
I haven't looked at the hebrew, but my thoughts on the scene are:
1. Once Eve eat, she had sinned and was personally doomed but Adam could have chosen not to follow; and hypothetically God could have made a new Eve.
2. Adam knew what Eve had done but consciously chose to eat as well. It was a deliberate decision, possibly a choice to be with Eve although Adam knew she would die, that is he chose to share in her new mortality; very romantic, but in doing so he chose the creation over the creator.
ylop
1. Once Eve eat, she had sinned and was personally doomed but Adam could have chosen not to follow; and hypothetically God could have made a new Eve.
2. Adam knew what Eve had done but consciously chose to eat as well. It was a deliberate decision, possibly a choice to be with Eve although Adam knew she would die, that is he chose to share in her new mortality; very romantic, but in doing so he chose the creation over the creator.
ylop
The Hebrew here is conveyed accurately in the English. Eve was not charged or imputed with the sin until Adam ate since Adam was the covenant head of the human race. He stood in a unique position as representative for all like Christ also stood as the God-Man who stood in for all of mankind.
Also, Scripture is often its own best interpreter and the this is also confirmed with the NC scriptures where we find in Romans 5 that Adam was the one through whom sin entered into the world. Paul specifically tells us that sin came into the world through "one man" (5:12). The same idea is stated again in 5:15 where again we find that through one man's sin "many died."
Then again in 5:18 we have the single tense used were one act/trespass (not two) led to the condemnation of all (which would have included Eve at that point and all subsequent people throughout all of history).
And then again in 5:19 the text says that "one man's disobedience the many were made sinners."
Throughout this text we have symmetry between what Adam did and we visually see there and what is interpreted theologically by Paul. In Adam was the entire race and from which Eve had also derived her existence from. Thus, she was not experientially in sin nor aware of the sin until Adam, the covenant head of the human race, sinned by eating.
This symmetry is then carried over in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15 to the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Adam's one sin and one act condemned all of humanity. Jesus Christ's one act (death on the cross) justified God in giving life to all people (common grace life). Adam's sin led to the condemnation of many whereas Christ's one act led to righteousness (special grace or eternal life) for the many (Rom. 5:18-19). [Special note: The Greek in 5:18 is best translated here by the NASB, "So then as through one transgression [fn]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [fn]there resulted justification of life to all men."]
Also, Scripture is often its own best interpreter and the this is also confirmed with the NC scriptures where we find in Romans 5 that Adam was the one through whom sin entered into the world. Paul specifically tells us that sin came into the world through "one man" (5:12). The same idea is stated again in 5:15 where again we find that through one man's sin "many died."
Then again in 5:18 we have the single tense used were one act/trespass (not two) led to the condemnation of all (which would have included Eve at that point and all subsequent people throughout all of history).
And then again in 5:19 the text says that "one man's disobedience the many were made sinners."
Throughout this text we have symmetry between what Adam did and we visually see there and what is interpreted theologically by Paul. In Adam was the entire race and from which Eve had also derived her existence from. Thus, she was not experientially in sin nor aware of the sin until Adam, the covenant head of the human race, sinned by eating.
This symmetry is then carried over in Romans 5 and 1 Cor. 15 to the second Adam, Jesus Christ. Adam's one sin and one act condemned all of humanity. Jesus Christ's one act (death on the cross) justified God in giving life to all people (common grace life). Adam's sin led to the condemnation of many whereas Christ's one act led to righteousness (special grace or eternal life) for the many (Rom. 5:18-19). [Special note: The Greek in 5:18 is best translated here by the NASB, "So then as through one transgression [fn]there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [fn]there resulted justification of life to all men."]
Thank you for an excellent explanation of this, Dr. Allen.
A
Anonymous
Guest
May I throw in a thought for discussion? I have not done my homework on this, but when discussing this issue with a friend, I was asked, "what would have happened if Eve ate and Adam refused?" My response, nothing, Adam would have forgiven her and things would have been restored. My short term reasoning is that Adam received the command from God, Eve received it from Adam. Eve disobeyed Adam, not God (chain of command or authority).
As far as I can tell the translation from the Hebrew to the english is correct. The scriptures tell us about patriarchy and we can see that from this story. Plus we know that by one 'man' did sin enter into the world. Not the woman. Also we know that by one 'man' was sin dealt with and the price was paid for.
I always found it neat to look at the similarities. Both were called 'Adam'. One the 'first Adam' and the other the 'second Adam'. Both were called the 'Son' of Elohim (God). And the first Adam spent a certain amount of time without a bride and the second Adam is doing the same thing until one day. Just can't wait until that day.
I always found it neat to look at the similarities. Both were called 'Adam'. One the 'first Adam' and the other the 'second Adam'. Both were called the 'Son' of Elohim (God). And the first Adam spent a certain amount of time without a bride and the second Adam is doing the same thing until one day. Just can't wait until that day.
Can we be sure that Adam was the one that warned Eve not to eat of the tree? Was Eve really under Adam in headship before the fall? It seems to me that they both had a free will and Adam wasn't responsible as a head until after the fall. The woman was easier to deceive, and therefore Eve was first in the transgression.John Whitten said:
A
Anonymous
Guest
Jim, I Corinthians 11 makes it pretty clear that Adam was head even before the fall. No we cannot be certain that Adam is the one to tell her about the command, but it is the most logical solution, particularly when we see how she added to the command when she repeated it to the serpent "touch", copy of a copy degenerates. Equality before the fall would imply that male leadership is a second option and the result of sin and a punishment, to the woman rather than the security and comfort that God designed the relationship to possess.
we are all in agreement that sin entered the dna of the human race when adam ate the fruit.
the question that i am working on here is; would there have been no effect at all on eve if she had eaten the physical fruit fruit of the tree without adam eating of it? (or, until he ate of it)
could the fruit from the tree that was created to impart the knowledge of good and evil be eaten of with no effect upon the partaker as long as adam did not eat any of it?
the full effect of sin, no. but no effect on her at all? she would see nothing new?
the question that i am working on here is; would there have been no effect at all on eve if she had eaten the physical fruit fruit of the tree without adam eating of it? (or, until he ate of it)
could the fruit from the tree that was created to impart the knowledge of good and evil be eaten of with no effect upon the partaker as long as adam did not eat any of it?
the full effect of sin, no. but no effect on her at all? she would see nothing new?
Scarecrow
Member
I could take a bite of something and hand it to someone else and within a few seconds they could take a bite of it too. It would be redundant to say that Eve's eyes were opened and then seconds later that Adam's eyes were opened if they both partook of the fruit within seconds of each other...had Adam not bitten the fruit I believe Eve's eyes would have been opened because she transgressed the commandment not to eat of the fruit. All we can do is speculate as the situation did not happen.
Let's take the example of two people getting into a car. Two people open the doors of a car, one on each side. The driver gets in a little bit ahead of the passenger. To say that the driver got in the car and sat down and then the passenger got in the car and sat down would be accurate, but most likely we would simply state that they got in the car.
Adam and Eve both transgressed the commandment of God and both had their eyes opened...that is all we are told and all we need to know (or we would have been told more).
Let's take the example of two people getting into a car. Two people open the doors of a car, one on each side. The driver gets in a little bit ahead of the passenger. To say that the driver got in the car and sat down and then the passenger got in the car and sat down would be accurate, but most likely we would simply state that they got in the car.
Adam and Eve both transgressed the commandment of God and both had their eyes opened...that is all we are told and all we need to know (or we would have been told more).
Did the fruit itself impart knowledge of good and evil, or was it God through his word? What i'm trying to say, maybe the fruit didn't magically cause their eyes to open. After they ate, they then realized, on their own (eyes opened), they had disobeyed God. Does that make any sense? Kinda like when a young child is told the first time not to touch something... they just don't understand the consequences (difference between good and bad) until correction comes.steve said:
that, i believe, is the most reasonable conclusion.
that would be true IF the speculation about him being right there is true and IF he immediately ate. some do not believe that he was there, and so there would be a time lag. i believe that he was probably there.
but was there no time lag? did adam eat immediately if he was standing there? is it possible that he spent some time considering the action before he committed it?
why is it impossible to believe that eves eyes were opened first? do we teach that she can sin first, but not get revelation first?
maybe our assumptions, based on what little was written, are enough. or maybe the Holy Spirit has more to teach us about it. i would not choose to remain ignorant if that is so.
I think the knowledge was that eating the forbidden fruit was evil and not eating the forbidden fruit was good. This knowledge existed before people ate from the tree. Hence it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
People's eyes were open to more new ways to do evil after eating the tree.
Before there were many other trees that were good choices to eat fruit from, but only one tree that I know of that was an evil tree to eat fruit from.
People's eyes were open to more new ways to do evil after eating the tree.
Before there were many other trees that were good choices to eat fruit from, but only one tree that I know of that was an evil tree to eat fruit from.
Some would object they could not have known what death was without eating from the tree so therefor the warning of death was not a warning because they could not have known that death was bad without first eating from the tree to know what death was therefor they could not have known they should not do it until they did it and god (the straw-man god of theirs) is the villain.
To which a good response might be something similar to that in Romans 3:5-8
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! Romans 3:5-8 NIV 2011
Their eyes were already opened to one evil possibility but their eyes became open to more evil in my opinion.
Also they saw the effects of sin first hand, even though they already knew enough to know that they should not do it (before doing it) in my opinion.
To which a good response might be something similar to that in Romans 3:5-8
5 But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6 Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! Romans 3:5-8 NIV 2011
Their eyes were already opened to one evil possibility but their eyes became open to more evil in my opinion.
Also they saw the effects of sin first hand, even though they already knew enough to know that they should not do it (before doing it) in my opinion.