« Follow-up to previous post on Piper and marriage | Main | "Wisdom for Mothers" »

What was the original sin?

Why did Adam eat the forbidden fruit?

The answer commonly given comes from Gen. 3:17 by way of Pauline interpretation: he listened to Eve. Eve was deceived by the serpent and therefore ate of the fruit, and Adam listened to Eve and ate of the fruit as well.

But why did he listen to her? Is it her fault? Is it his fault? Is it the serpent's fault?

The serpent beguiled Eve. She listened to the serpent instead of obeying God. Adam listened to Eve instead of obeying God. All three were cursed. Note that, when God asked Adam whether he'd eaten of the tree of knowledge, he blamed Eve (Gen 3:12). When God asked Eve what she'd done, she blamed the serpent (v. 13). So God cursed first the serpent, and then Eve, and then Adam. Is there significance to this order? Was it first the serpent's fault, and then Eve's fault, and then Adam's?

In Romans 5:12-19, we read that sin entered the world through Adam's transgression (disobedience), not through either the serpent or through Eve. Does this mean that original sin is imputed to Adam, and that he is responsible for that sin? (In I Corinthians 15:22 Paul says that "in Adam" all die.)

Paul tells Timothy that women are not to teach men or exercise authority over them (I Timothy 2). The common assumption is that Paul is referring to an institutional setting (church) or an organized gathering of believers for worship and instruction, yet such inference is based upon the fact that Paul gives instruction for overseers and elders. His letter, however, consists of general instructions for believers which cover a wide range of topics and relationships. Most likely, Paul's words are for the Christian community in general, members of which would certainly interact, both with each other and with Timothy, in settings other than gathering for instruction or worship.

In I Corinthians chapter 11, we are told that man is the head of the woman; Christ is the head of the man; and God is the head of Christ. Woman is the glory of man, and was created for his sake. Man is the glory of God, so his head is uncovered, but woman is the glory of man, so (assumed) her head is only uncovered in the man's presence. For "those inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice." (v. 16). This obviously has to do with a cultural practice, although headship and creation order and creation purpose (woman for man) are not cultural. But Paul says, in v. 10: "the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels."

So here, the only other place in the NT besides I Timothy 2:12 which mentions the authority of men over women, it is said to be because of the angels. (Anyone know what that means?) The word "authority" here is also translated "power" in some versions. (The ASV renders "authority" as "dominion" in I Tim. 2:12.)

Is Paul's instruction pertaining to women teaching or exercising authority over men about headship and leadership and authority, or about propriety, or about protecting men from the deceit of women...or some combination of these? Or simply honor due purpose (which includes propriety)? Surely men are deceived by other men, and by their own thoughts and hearts, and lead others astray, including women. And surely men are often corrected and saved from error by the words of a woman. Ought men not have the strength to obey God no matter whom attempts to deceive them? Ought women not have the strength to obey God regardless of whom attempts to deceive them?

Woman was made for man, to help him and not deceive him, obviously. But she was obviously also created with the ability to be deceived, and to listen to someone other than God and Adam, and Adam was created with the ability to listen to someone other than God and be led astray.

But not only did Adam take and eat of the fruit himself, he also failed to prevent Eve from eating it. Why? Why didn't he try to stop her? Is it because he allowed her authority over him? In a sense, yes. What about the serpent? Did Eve allow the serpent to have authority over her in place of her husband's? We don't know, because the serpent asks her, in Gen 3:1, "Has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree in the garden?"

Perhaps we can assume that Eve was told about the tree by Adam, who was told by God before she was made, although we are not told this explicitly anywhere in Scripture. Even Paul does not say who told whom what; he simply says that Adam was created before Eve, and that Eve was created from Adam for Adam, and that Eve was deceived. Did Adam have authority over Eve simply because he was created first, as Paul says, and is it assumed that when the serpent said, "Has God said," he meant, "Has God said, through your husband?" Did Adam's word from God have authority for Eve simply because he heard it first and passed it on to her, because God speaks to men before women, and women can only hear God's word as passed to them by men?

Must we say, based on Romans 5, that women are responsible for misleading men, if it is through Adam's transgression that sin entered the world? This would depend upon whether Adam is actually responsible, due to sin's having entered the world through him. Whether he is or not, was Adam's sin that he listened to Eve, or that he disobeyed God? Was his (and Eve's) disobedience one of ignoring proper roles, or was it simply that neither Eve nor Adam heeded the words of God not to eat of the forbidden fruit? Did Eve not heed her husband's words (from God), or did she not heed God's words, in leading both herself and her husband astray?

In other words, was the original disobedience a role reversal, or was it simply that both Eve and Adam failed to obey God regarding the tree of knowledge?

What if Adam had offered the fruit to Eve? What if Eve had eaten the fruit given her by Adam? I know it didn't happen that way, but surely men listen to "serpents" rather than God too, and so mislead women. What of that?

What was the original sin -- a disregard for gender role, or a disregard of God's instruction about the forbidden fruit? Did God's command have to do with gender role, or were both Adam and Eve responsible to obey God's command regarding the tree of knowledge before the words of any and all others?

Comments

Oh, what a can of worms, Bonnie.

Very briefly, here are my thoughts (but without time or space to explain fully, so bear with me):

It just seems theologically odd to suppose that the first sin was a disregard for gender roles. The serpent did not come to Eve to tempt her about so-called wifely submission, but to introduce doubt of God's goodness.

BTW, I'm not using the word "original" to refer to the first sin. I'm reserving that term to refer to the inherited falleness that everyone has because of the first sin.

Who sinned first? Technically, Eve. I would add that I believe that the Bible says she was "deceived" as a gentle way to put her offense. Realistically, Eve believed the serpent's lies with much deliberation (saw that the tree was good for food, able to make one wise...).

Onto Adam, who knew the truth about God more clearly than Eve (and I think it was both Adam's and Eve's faults for lack of clarity as far as not even being able to touch the T.o.k.o.g.a.e., what I see as a red flag that got ignored). He also believed the serpent and followed Eve into disobedience. Yet, here is the interesting bit: Adam takes the blame and pronouncement of judgment for both of their individual sins.

Now if I seem like I'm wandering off the beaten path on Gen. 3, what I'm about to say will confirm it.

God curses the serpent and curses the earth. He does not curse Adam or Eve. I don't believe the increase in childbearing pain is a curse as much as it is part of the message to both: "without Me, life is hard and then you die." But just before this, God already spelled out redemption for mankind in the eventual defeat of the serpent.

Okay, last point: it is not as though Adam and Eve got away curse-free entirely. The conventional view is that the earth was cursed with all kinds of natural curses (whatever that means to you). Two authors I've read who take a framework view of Genesis posit that the earth is not cursed in and of itself, but that it is cursed with the presence of sinful man--Adam and Eve ARE the curse. And, until Christ comes to finally cleanse the earth from our sin, it will be groaning like a woman in labor (as described by Paul).

And like a runaway train, I'll continue to make one last statement and then go to bed. What this has to do with gender relations: going back to my point about Adam taking the blame for what is essentially group sin (because both committed the same sin), I believe God made Adam responsible for the actions of the couple together, as representative of their marriage/family..as head. There, I said it!

Bonnie wrote--
Is Paul's instruction pertaining to women teaching or exercising authority over men about headship and leadership and authority, or about propriety, or about protecting men from the deceit of women...or some combination of these? Or simply honor due purpose (which includes propriety)? Surely men are deceived by other men, and by their own thoughts and hearts, and lead others astray, including women. And surely men are often corrected and saved from error by the words of a woman. Ought men not have the strength to obey God no matter whom attempts to deceive them? Ought women not have the strength to obey God regardless of whom attempts to deceive them?

I think these are the right questions. There is a context to Paul's words that we shouldn't ignore. There is such a thing as women talking like clucking hens in church, so it is appropriate at times for women to shut it.

Obviously, there is more than I can post at one time, and I'm sure I've added more cans of worms to this topic than one string can handle!

*Letitia*

Posted by: Letitia at January 8, 2008 3:55 AM

And in your next post, you'll give us all the answers to these questions, I hope?

Since Adam doesn't respond in horror at Eve's action -- Genesis 3:6 says her husband was with her, possibly listening to the serpent's entire presentation and watching, *allowing* Eve to take the first bite, then taking one himself -- I've always seen his sin as a sin directly against what he knew to be God's clear instruction to him.

Furthermore, I think his taking the second bite shows a certain cowardice. I can imagine him calculating that if something terrible happened to Eve, he would at least escape unharmed. Which also suggests to me that Adam had been curious about the tree, thinking about and tempted by the tree. He neither ran away nor rebuked Eve nor knocked the fruit away before she touched it -- he was passive, and thus complicit in her sin. He encouraged her by his acquiescence, and then by his active participation with her.

So, there's a lot of sin here, but the capital sin has to be that both Adam and Eve bowed to the authority of the serpent in this matter over the authority of God. That Adam takes the blame suggests that he knew he had the power to prevent what had happened, and had failed to take a stand.

Posted by: Charlie at January 8, 2008 10:52 AM

Letitia, your comments are great, and I'll interact with them when I get a chance.

LOL Charlie, after writing this post, I've gotta let my brain rest (pathetic, isn't it?)

Posted by: Bonnie at January 8, 2008 2:04 PM

Bonnie,

I just want to mention that 1 Cor. 11:10 says that a woman has **** on her head.

You can translate **** as "power" "permission" "liberty" or "authority." It is possible to say that it might be a "symbol of" power. That is, the word "exousia" has been known to mean "crown" in Greek, a symbol of one's own power.

It has never even once been used in Greek to indicate that someone else has power over you. That is not a linguistically possible interpretation. The only really unbiased translation is to say that the women "has power on her head" and then work from there.

Likewise, 1 Tim. 2:12 uses a word with the semantic domain of "force, dominate, compel, take over power, overpower, put oneself in the position of lord over". This also does not relate to the English word authority.

However, there is a verb in Greek which means "to have authority over" and it is used in 1 Cor. 7:4.

So there is perfectly good and natural way to say "to have authority/power/dominion over" and it is used in 1 Cor. 7 but it is not used in the either 1 Cor. 11:10 or in 1 Tim. 2:12.

I hope you don't mind my mentioning this. I do not believe that there is even the remotest chance that Paul would ever have written that men should "authenteo" (1 Tim. 2:12)anyone. It just does not sound like a proper thing to do to someone, to force them to do things.

I know these comments are in some ways beside the point for your post, but Just the same, I don't like to see something that is not quite so perpetuated.

Posted by: Sue at January 8, 2008 2:50 PM

PS. I am sorry to nitpick like this because otherwise I agree with your post.

Posted by: Sue at January 8, 2008 2:54 PM

Not a problem, Suzanne.

I appreciate your notes about translation. I must be honest, though, and admit that, though I know very little about Greek, it does seem that there are many words that can be translated as “authority,” and vice-versa. “Authority” can be similar in meaning to “power” or “lordship” as well.

One of the things I have noticed about various interpretations of terms or statements in Scripture is that often they do not appear to give enough consideration to the context of the passage in which they appear. In both Scripture and common usage, terms such as headship, leadership, authority, and the like have a basic meaning that is then applied to and used in a variety of situations. As I see it, there is problem of interpretation when the terms are assumed to carry a certain connotation that they may indeed have in certain situations or passages, but do not have in the particular passage in which they are used, which can be seen from the context.

In I Tim. 2:12, I do not see that Paul is saying that anyone has the right to force anything upon anyone else; the passage is not about force, except perhaps to say that a woman should not force authority over a man. He says that he does not allow a woman to exercise authority (or have power, or dominion) over a man. We can debate what exactly that means, but it’s less of a debate, I think, to debate what it actually says. The passage, though, (vv. 9-15) is about women being modest, having discretion, and exercising restraint.

(I didn’t reference I Cor. 7 in my post because that passage refers to authority that spouses have over one other’s bodies in terms of duty regarding sexual relations, so as not to deprive one another; not authority over entire persons.)

Posted by: Bonnie at January 8, 2008 10:40 PM

1. perhaps to say that a woman should not force authority over a man.

Yes, that is what it means.

Posted by: Sue at January 8, 2008 11:12 PM

Sue, in a former comment, you said that 1 Tim. 2:12 uses a word with the semantic domain of "force, dominate, compel, take over power, overpower, put oneself in the position of lord over". Then, This also does not relate to the English word authority. Then you cited I Cor. 7:4, and said, So there is perfectly good and natural way to say "to have authority/power/dominion over" and it is used in 1 Cor. 7 but it is not used in the either 1 Cor. 11:10 or in 1 Tim. 2:12.

This last statement seems to contradict both your most recent comment and the first statement that I quoted.

Perhaps there is more than one Greek word involved in conveying the meaning related to authority in some passages?

Posted by: Bonnie at January 9, 2008 9:28 AM

I haven't studied the matter, but I agree with the first comment about (at least seeming) theological oddity.

Posted by: Martin LaBar at January 10, 2008 8:51 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.