Eve NEVER took or ate of the fruit

[Woody]

Ok. Ok. Ok.

I started this thread for a little entertainment. I thought it was interesting trivia that it was not Eve that took the fruit .. but Woman. She was named Eve after sin. I guess that some of you don't have much interest in trivia. Sorry to offend you. None was intended.

This has all turned into something far more serious than I had intended in my light trivial mood of yesterday.

But ... GO FOR IT. Have your fun.

PS ...

Quote:

There's no need to try and confuse the things that are plainly revealed to us

And to Norman ... It was not my intentions to confuse anyone. I think the Bible is clear on the matter and I was simply pointing out this clarity of names.

[David Koot]

I started this thread for a little entertainment. I thought it was interesting trivia that it was not Eve that took the fruit .. but Woman. She was named Eve after sin. I guess that some of you don't have much interest in trivia.

But after all, it was posted under the pen name of the one--the only--REDWOOD! How were we to know any different? Besides, for all I knew, you and your bro Laz had concocted something. You did say he was kin to you, right? Yeah, the whole Laz/Murph thing redux.

Dave

[Woody]

But ... I do admit that Laz and I are very close also.

[David Koot]

Well if that don't beat ALL! John317/Redwood. I would never have known. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. What a volte-face The meticulous scholar and the free-wheeling Don Quixote. Woohoo! John317/Redwood, you have outdone yourselves! And as for the Laz connection . . . this is getting more interesting all the time. You DID refer to him as your long-lost brother. What a trio!

[Woody]

YES ! The result of all this is that it means that Laz/Murph is related to John317 by marriage.

Now take a bit of that fruit.

[Amelia]

[John317]

We can lay to rest that Adam was else where in the garden and didn't know what Eve was up to; unless you all decide that this woman and man are not Adamn & Eve.

Quote:

Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it

Check out this evidence: The man wasn't with Eve when she first ate the fruit.

(1) God commanded the man not to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 1: 16.)

(2)Then afterwards God made the woman and brought her to Adam. (Gen. 2: 22.)

(3) The serpent is specifically said to have asked "the woman" his question about what God said, and this first question implies that this was not the first words exchanged between the woman and the serpent. (Gen. 3: 1.)

(4) Notice that during the whole conversation between the woman and the serpent, not a word is said about the man. Nor does the record report that the man says a single word either pro or con as far as the serpent's temptation of Eve is concerned. Why not? The only rational explanation, which is in harmony with the rest of Scripture, is that the man was not present during this time.

(5) The woman takes the fruit and eats it. (Gen. 3: 6.)

(6) At this point, only after eating it herself, Eve gives some of the fruit to Adam. And he eats it.

[At this point it is important to keep in mind what the New Testament says about this situation: Eve was deceived by Satan, but Adam was not deceived. Adam knew what he was doing but he decided to eat it anyway. He obviously decided he would rather die than live without his beloved wife. See 2 Cor. 11: 3; 1 Tim 2: 14. If Adam was not deceived, it is impossible to believe that he stood silently and dumb beside his beloved wife, heard Satan's temptations, and watched Eve eat the fruit without giving Eve a single word of warning of what Adam knew to be the case, that her eating the fruit would result in her death.]

(7) Finally, when God confronts Eve with what she did, she says nothing about Adam but blames the Serpent. Adam does not blame Satan or the serpent, but merely says that the woman gave him the fruit. This would be difficult to explain if they were together during the time the serpent was tempting Eve. Eve says the serpent deceived "me", not "us." (Gen. 3: 12-14).

(8) Finally, the different punishments God gives Adam and Eve show that Eve fell first, and Adam fell as a result of listening to Eve. (Gen. 3: 17-- "Because you listened to your wife".) Apparently because the woman fell first, Adam is made her ruler and she is made to give birth in pain (Gen. 3: 16).

It is most interesting that Ellen White says that in the vision God gave her of these events, Adam was not with Eve at the time Satan was tempting her. Her statement, as shown above, agrees completely with the Bible record. See Patriarchs and Prophets on the Temptation and Fall.

[John317]

Here are the points that must be dealt with in order to determine whether Adam ws or was not at the tree with Eve when she took of the fruit and ate it:

(a)the fact that to believe that Adam was with Eve at the tree, one must believe that although Adam was not deceived-- in other words, that although Adam knew perfectly well that Satan was lying and about ready to succeed in destroying his beloved wife-- he said nothing to Eve about Satan's temptation. How do you explain this?

( It means that Adam stood dumb the whole time and allowed somone he loved to fall victim to Satan and incur death. Why Adam's silence?

© It means that one has to ignore the fact that Eve never blamed Adam for his silence when he heard her being tempted. How do you account for the fact that Eve never blamed Adam, which we could expect she would have if she knew that Adam stood silently by and allowed her to be deceived when he knew all that time what was going on?

(d) It means that Satan never addressed Adam the whole time he was standing beside Eve listening and watching the whole time. Is it reasonable to assume that this is what would have happened?

(e) It means that one must ignore the fact that Adam never blamed Satan for the temptation. Deal with the fact that Adam never blamed Satan, which we could assume he would have if Adam was convinced that Satan had caused his fall.

(f) It means one must ignore the comment in the NT that Adam was not deceived but that Eve was. How do you explain this aspect of the fall?

(g) It means one must ignore the fact that God even says that Adam "listened to his wife," but says nothing about Adam listening to Satan. Deal with the fact that God specifically says Adam fell because he listened to his wife Eve and does not suggest, as He does to Eve, that Adam fell because of Satan. How does this make sense if we believe that both Adam and Eve listened together to Satan?

h) Finally, deal with the different kinds of punishment given to Adam and Eve, all on the assumption that, as the New Testament tells us, Eve was deceived and Adam was not.

There is other evidence but these points are sufficient to show that it is not true the Bible is clear that Adam was with Eve during her temptation.

In order to show that Adam was with Eve at the tree, one really needs to deal with those points individually, and not simply state that the Bible is clear that Adam was with her during all that time. My whole point is that the evidence shows the Bible is clear that Adam was not with Eve when Satan was tempting her.

[olger]

All valid points, I would say. Adam of course, was the federal head of the human race, and EGW makes it plain that restlessness lay behind Eve's separation from him. I have a study on the fall that I put together many years ago. I will post it here if there is any interest in it. The Review magazine also published an article of mine called "I asked for a Lamb" which dealt with the issue from Cain & Abel's perspective.

best wishes,

olger

[Tom Wetmore]

WOW!! That is a very lot of effort to try to overcome the plain, simple and obvious meaning of the Scripture which says, "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

Why is that necessary? Why is it so important to prove that Adam was elsewhere? What difference does it make, really? Does it change the outcome? Or the ultimate solution?

Tom

[John317]

... I have a study on the fall that I put together many years ago. I will post it here if there is any interest in it. The Review magazine also published an article of mine called "I asked for a Lamb" which dealt with the issue from Cain & Abel's perspective.best wishes,olger

I would love to read it. Thank you.

[John317]

WOW!! That is a very lot of effort to try to overcome the plain, simple and obvious meaning of the Scripture which says, "She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

Why is that necessary? Why is it so important to prove that Adam was elsewhere? What difference does it make, really? Does it change the outcome? Or the ultimate solution?

Tom

OK, so deal with each of the points. Show how the points are either wrong or do not apply in the way they have been applied. So far you are simply stating a conclusion. Please deal with the evidence presented.

What you don't see evidently is that it doesn't say he was with her at the time she was tempted. All it says is that she gave some to him to eat when he was with her, but it does not specify when that occurred or how long a period of time elapsed between between Eve's temptation and the moment he ate the fruit.

The Bible doesn't always indicate or show gaps of time between words and phrases. There are others like this: for instance, Isaiah 61: 2, "To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord" is actually separated by a gap of about 2000 years from the rest of the sentence, "and the day of vengence." Yet in the text, there is no indication of a gap of time.

See Jesus use of this text in Luke 4: 19.

[olger]

Yes, but what is the Bible saying here? That he was right beside her.... like a potted plant?

With her in the Garden? That seems more plausible when we bring in the rest of the Good Book.

[olger]

We are referring to Genesis 3:16. This is God’s pronouncement regarding the fate of woman after she has transgressed God’s law. It is a profoundly spiritual statement that He makes, and it is full of spiritual meaning. Therefore, before we can understand and appreciate it, we must have the help of God’s Spirit—as spiritual things are only spiritually discerned.

“Unto the woman He said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to (toward) thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” This pronouncement is laden with spiritual truth and I invite you to grapple with me as we seek to discover that.

Proverbs 26:2. “As the bird by wandering, as the swallow by flying, so the curse without a cause shall not come.” What is the cause of the curse pronounced upon the woman? It could also be asked, what is the cause of any curse?

Deut 11:26-28. “Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the LORD your God, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day,” When a commandment of God is obeyed it brings a what? A blessing. But if it is disobeyed, it brings a curse. The cause of the curse pronounced upon the woman was disobedience to the will of God. What specifically was that? I submit—that she should be in harmony with her husband and His will. God had revealed through her husband that she should not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good & evil. He had instructed Adam even before she was created. It was through Adam, therefore, that this command was passed on to her. She however chose to disobey that command and the consequence was a curse.

We must recognize here that what we so freely refer to as a curse is actually God’s law—as a rebellious heart relates to it.. “You shall be subject to your husband (house-band).”

1 Cor. 14:34. Note God’s language through Paul in reference to “your women” (some of the older manuscripts exclude the word your) are to be submissive as also the Law says.” As what says? As the Law says! “They are to be submissive.” Note verse 37 as well “The things I write unto you they are the commandments of the Lord.” Specifically, this passage refers to command that the woman must be submissive (obedient). Where does the Lord command that the woman is to be submissive? In our text (Genesis 3:16). “Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

Now whether this law/command is a blessing or a curse, depends entirely upon how we choose to relate to it. What then is a curse? A curse is the Law of God as it confronts a rebellious heart. What then is the blessing? The blessing is the law of God as it written on a submitted heart. The same law therefore cane be either a curse or a blessing depending upon how on choose to relate to it. Whether God’s law is to us –one of sin & death–or the Law of the spirit of life depends entirely upon whether or not we are submitted to His authority. Is our will submitted to our House-Band–our Head?

God’s Law “That which the heart desires contrary to the will of God, will in the end, be found a curse rather than a blessing” (Patriarchs & Prophets). Another point to keep in mind regarding God’s Law, is that it is eternal, unchanging, as the Character of which it is a transcript (Psalms 111:7-8). Having said that, we need to point out that the manner in which God’s law is expressed to us has been significantly modified and adapted to meet us in our fallen condition. For instance, the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” will presumably not be known (in that fashion) throughout eternity, but the principle–the promotion of life in all aspects is as eternal as God’s character. Note as well when we speak of God’s law as eternal, we do not insist that the law will eternally say “Wives submit yourselves to your husbands.” However, the principle in harmony with God-ordained authority is certainly eternal. With the rest of creation we await a new earth & nature where submission will be a perfect and natural harmony. This will not come until we exchange our cross for a crown. Then and only then will the last vestiges of the curse of the law be removed—when corruption puts on incorruption. This is when the law will become to us everything that God intended it to be.

Adam under Christ. Adam was the God-ordained authority with whom Eve was to be in harmony. Even before the fall, his authority was evident in several ways. The curse after the fall introduced no new functions, but explained how sin would affect the existing duties & functions that God had already ordained. Let’s note several of them.

• The curse says “In pain shalt thou bring forth children.” It assumes that it is already God’s will that the woman would bring forth children “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). The curse then simply states how this God-ordained function would be affected by sin. There is now a tangible opposition factor in the physical realm of her being that renders fruit-bearing laborious & painful. There is a profound object-lesson herein.

• Cursed is the ground for your sake” In toil ye shall eat of it. Both thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to you. In the sweat of your face shall you eat bread.” Again this assumes that it is God’s will that man work the ground in gardening but it states how that labor will now be affected on account of sin. There is now again a tangible opposition factor to the created order—it has been subjected to sin & selfishness. Thus all of Adam’s efforts to bear fruit from the ground will be painful & laborious. But Adam had been instructed to fill the earth and subdue it. He’s been told to tend the Garden and keep it already. This was not a new dimension to man’s experience, but rather an adverse effect brought on by sin.

The blessing of submission. In the same manner, the aspect of the curse that said “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” assumes already the reality of Eve’s God-ordained role–namely to be Adam’s help-meet. This was her purpose for existence. What the curse now says is—that which God previously ordained will now become difficult because of an opposition factor within her. Her submission to his will, will no longer be natural or spontaneous. Indeed now that submission will require self-sacrifice and self-denial. In this submission, she shares in the Law of heaven–the law of love. The curse becomes a blessing.

Adam as Federal head. There are other aspects as well that indicate Adam’s God-ordained position of authority, even prior to the fall. For instance Adam was created first, and as such he was the legal representative—the federal head of the entire human race—a type of Christ, the second Adam (Luke 3:38). He was a type of Christ. By virtue of his position, he had authority over the entire race–his wife included. This is pointed out in the fact that the consequences of transgression were not realized by the human race until Adam sinned. You recall in Genesis 3:6 “she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” Then, after he sinned (the federal legal representative of the human race) — then the eyes of both of them were opened and they knew that they were naked. Adam was in a position of authority even over his wife as the legal representative of his race. It is also significant to note in this context, Ellen White’s comment, that had Adam not yielded to the woman’s temptation, Eve would have been replaced. Adam was most definitely in a position of authority, even prior to sin.

Another indication of this position of authority is that he was designated the lawgiver by God, that through Adam , God communicated his expressed command regarding the tree of knowledge of good & evil—even prior to her creation. She received God’s commandment through her house-band, her lawgiver Adam.

Another aspect that points out Adam’s position of authority over Eve even prior to the fall is that he was the one who named her. Adam manifested his dominion over the entire earth in that he named the animals that Friday afternoon as they paraded by him. It’s interesting to note the parallel structure in Genesis 2:19-2-23. Out of the ground, the Lord God formed every beast of the field and then brought them to Adam to see what He would call them. Whatever Adam called each individual creature—that was its name. This manifested Adam’s dominion over the created order—the right to name the creatures. Note the parallel “he took one of his ribs and made a woman from the rib and brought her to Adam. He says “Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman.” He names her even prior to sin manifesting his position of authority.

He was also in a position of authority over her in that she was given to him by God to be his help-meet, not vice-versa. Thus woman is the glory of man, as Paul says, not vice versa. Note the way Paul states this “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not from the woman; but the woman from the man. Nor was man created for the woman; but the woman for man. For this reason and because of the angels, woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head” (in this context it refers to a veil).

Now, having sought to establish that Adam was in a position of authority over the woman even prior to the fall, we hasten to add that in no sense did that make him superior. How difficult it is for Christian brothers & sister to keep that in mind. Our natural gentile hearts are quick to equate a position of authority with superiority. That simply is not the case! To be subject does not mean to be inferior—there is a classic example of this truth. Jesus Christ! He was subject in every sense to the authority of the Father, yet perfectly equal. We must never forget this.

In fact I submit that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was in a position of submission to the Father even prior to sin. Does not His very name indicates this? The Word. “And the word was with God.” As word is to the thought, so Christ is to the Father. What is the author of our words? It is our thoughts. Christ was under the authority of the father as the Word of God. His title of Michael the Archangel is another example of his submission. He was in command, Lucifer was under Him. And over them was the Father. Again, submission does not equal inferiority—keep that out of your thinking.

Sorry for the long post,

(the sad news is, that's only 50% of the article)

olger

[Denise]

Quote:

"She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it."

From what I have learned, he was with her in the garden when this occured. It doesn't mean he was exactly standing there in the same spot in the garden when she was tempted.

[Amelia]

But the bible does not say that man was elsewhere. It states he was with her. Why do we have to read between the lines? Isn't that adding to what is written? And right now I don't want to know what Ellen has written. I just want solo scriptura. I know all the commentary I've read says it's obvious that man wasn't with her when she was tempted; OBVIOUS? Why is it obvious? Maybe man was blinded by the beauty and temptation of woman that he just went along with the whole thing? Isn't that just another way of reading between the lines to fill in something that isn't there?

[Denise]

I agree John 3:17, and those are excellent points to show that Adam indeed was not at the tree when Eve was tempted.

[ChildOfGod4Ever]

Wow. Um, RW - is it always you that I've been PMing with? Or are you saying you just write under two different pen names? I'm a little confused on that.

[olger]

Wow. Um, RW - is it always you that I've been PMing with? Or are you saying you just write under two different pen names? I'm a little confused on that.

Unusual indeed.

olger

[John317]

Yes, but what is the Bible saying here? That he was right beside her.... like a potted plant?

With her in the Garden? That seems more plausible when we bring in the rest of the Good Book.

Great article, Olger. I didn't find it very long at all.

I noticed that the Jewish translater, Robert Alter, in his very recent translation of Genesis, in The Five Books of Moses, has "she also gave to her man," indicating that the the Hebrew is understood to mean that she gave to the one who was with her in the garden.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, Amelia, it really does seem to be adding to the plain reading of scripture and certainly seems contrary to a sola scriptura approach. But it is all the more incredible coming from those who have so vigorously advocated those two priniciples.

I still come back to my question - WHY?

[John317]

But the bible does not say that man was elsewhere. It states he was with her. Why do we have to read between the lines? Isn't that adding to what is written? And right now I don't want to know what Ellen has written. I just want solo scriptura. I know all the commentary I've read says it's obvious that man wasn't with her when she was tempted; OBVIOUS? Why is it obvious? Maybe man was blinded by the beauty and temptation of woman that he just went along with the whole thing? Isn't that just another way of reading between the lines to fill in something that isn't there?

Look carefully at the points I brought up straight out of the Bible and see where those points are wrong. I would simply ask that you look at the evidence. Where is my logic faulty or where am I making applications that are wrong?

People often simply state conclusions but in this case I would hope readers will read the points and criticize those points based on the Bible evidence and on reasoning from the text.

About the phrase, "with her": Eve obviously would have wanted Adam to eat the fruit "with her," to share in what she was deluded into thinking were its great benefits.

I noticed that the Jewish translater, Robert Alter, in his very recent translation of Genesis, in The Five Books of Moses, has "she also gave to her man," indicating that the the Hebrew is understood to mean that she gave to the one who was with her in the garden.

[John317]

Yes, Amelia, it really does seem to be adding to the plain reading of scripture and certainly seems contrary to a sola scriptura approach. But it is all the more incredible coming from those who have so vigorously advocated those two priniciples.

I still come back to my question - WHY?

That is a conclusion you are drawing. What is your evidence for your conclusion? Show how the points I have brought up are wrong. Discuss the evidence.

[aldona]

Quote:

Yes, but what is the Bible saying here? That he was right beside her.... like a potted plant?

So, when Adam stays by his wife's side, he is "like a potted plant."

But Eve was supposed to stay by his side because this was her God-given role.

Followed by a long exposition on male supremacy and why we should learn to love the idea of "submission."

Interesting.

aldona

[David Koot]

Okay you guys, I think you may be missing one important detail. The word translated 'with' is the Hebrew 'et2.' It occurs over 5,000 times in the Hebrew OT. A quick scan of the occurrences indicates that the word is not always used to describe 'location.' The semantic range is broader than that. It would appear to be amenable to a rendering as 'her husband connected with' or 'belonging to' her. The rendering as 'alongside her' appears to be a judgment call involving some editorializing.

Dave