Imputed sin

[ravindran_eee]

Not sure if this is the right forum. I was reading Romans and was at chapter 5. It clearly states, sin entered the world through one man's sin, Adam. But actually it was Eve who sinned first (leaving out Lucifer's fall since I am referring to sin by human kind). If Eve sinned first, then why it is stated that sin entered through Adam?

The way I understood is, Adam was created first as representative of the entire human kind. He had the accountability. So when he sinned, the entire human kind was doomed for death. Adam had the leadership responsibility. That's why in Genesis God says women will always try to control man, but man will rule over her. Responsibility and accountability for man.

Any other thoughts on this?

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The way I understood is, Adam was created first as representative of the entire human kind.

Stop right there.

IMO, there is no need to go any further with why.

 

[Deborah13]

Not sure if this is the right forum. I was reading Romans and was at chapter 5. It clearly states, sin entered the world through one man's sin, Adam. But actually it was Eve who sinned first (leaving out Lucifer's fall since I am referring to sin by human kind). If Eve sinned first, then why it is stated that sin entered through Adam?

The way I understood is, Adam was created first as representative of the entire human kind. He had the accountability. So when he sinned, the entire human kind was doomed for death. Adam had the leadership responsibility.

That's why in Genesis God says women will always try to control man, but man will rule over her. Responsibility and accountability for man.

Any other thoughts on this?

It took a sinful man to bring sin into the world, it took a sinless man to overcome it.
God did not tell Eve not to eat, Adam did. She should have listened to Adam.
Eve was deceived by satan. Adam's sin was willful.

That's why in Genesis God says women will always try to control man, but man will rule over her. Responsibility and accountability for man.
Any other thoughts on this?

This is what I have been taught by a pastor about this verse.

Genesis 3:16 OJB
Unto HaIsha He said, I will greatly multiply thy itzavon ([labor] pain) and thy childbearing; in pain thou shalt bring forth banim; and thy teshukah (longing, desire) shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. [or in thee], according to the Hebrew @ scripture4all.org]

tesh-oo-kaw'
From H7783 in the original sense of stretching out after; a longing: - desire.
shook
H7783 A primitive root; to run after or over, that is, overflow: - overflow, water.

maw-shal'
A primitive root; to rule: - (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.

So we see that it is the overflowing (longing) desire of the woman for the man that will cause him to have power over her.
If a woman does not have this longing desire for a man, he has no power over her.
So God tells the man to love his wife like Christ loves the Church. In this way he keeps his wife having this longing desire for him and he has power of her. A wise husband will obey the Lord.

 

[ravindran_eee]

Thank Deborah! I still don't know how to selectively quote from other posts

I don't agree that Eve was not given the command. Though God commands Adam not to eat from the tree of life and tree of knowledge even before creation of Eve, the law is for both of them. Quote from Genesis 3,

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,3but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

It is pretty clear that Eve knew the command. That she is not supposed to eat the fruit. IMO, both of them broke the law. And Eve was first to do it.

Regarding the other part, thanks for the details. Learnt something new.

 

[jasoncran]

adam was given a torah, eve was given that same torah. by that tradition men are to lead by humility and not be force or tyranny.

 

[Eugene]

Not sure if this is the right forum. I was reading Romans and was at chapter 5. It clearly states, sin entered the world through one man's sin, Adam. But actually it was Eve who sinned first (leaving out Lucifer's fall since I am referring to sin by human kind). If Eve sinned first, then why it is stated that sin entered through Adam?

The way I understood is, Adam was created first as representative of the entire human kind. He had the accountability. So when he sinned, the entire human kind was doomed for death. Adam had the leadership responsibility. That's why in Genesis God says women will always try to control man, but man will rule over her. Responsibility and accountability for man.

Any other thoughts on this?

Dear brother, the masculine noun “Man” used in Romans 5:12 is to be understood as Mankind or human beings (Adam is also used as Man, or human being). Eve did eat, but Adam chose to be one with his bride and partook also. This is an allegory of what Jesus (Second Adam) chose to do to be with us.

I might add that sin came by mankind, while grace and truth came by Jesus Christ if that helps. Blessings in Christ Jesus.

 

[farouk]

As Spurgeon comments, the Lord Jesus is the federal head of God's elect. Just as Adam is the head of creation in its natural state.

 

[Deborah13]

Thank Deborah! I still don't know how to selectively quote from other posts

I don't agree that Eve was not given the command. Though God commands Adam not to eat from the tree of life and tree of knowledge even before creation of Eve, the law is for both of them. Quote from Genesis 3,

1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,3but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

It is pretty clear that Eve knew the command. That she is not supposed to eat the fruit. IMO, both of them broke the law. And Eve was first to do it.

Regarding the other part, thanks for the details. Learnt something new.

Hi, this is how I selectively quote. First click on reply. Where ever you want to break it up or just quote a portion type quote in brackets at the beginning, and at the end /quote in brackets
The quote="Deborah13, post: 883047, member: 4075" in brackets must be left at the very beginning so that the person gets the alert and it is known who is being quoted. Anything you don't want to quote, just delete. I hope that is clear enough to understand. Someone else may do better with that.

Not to be argumentative, but did God say don't touch the Tree? I don't know if Adam added that part or Eve did herself, she may have.
Yes, Eve knew the rules and yes she sinned.
For some reason Paul makes a point of the fact the Eve was deceived and Adam was not. Maybe someone else can help us with Paul's reasoning in this scripture.

1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. (see Paul blames Eve)

I did find this interesting writing from the Reformation Bible Commentary though....
2:14 Again Paul alludes to Genesis, this time to the account of the Fall (Gen. 3:1–6). The argument might seem unfair, since both Adam and Eve sinned. But Paul’s point is correct: Eve was the one who was “deceived” by the serpent. Paul’s argument here, with its emphasis on who was deceived, is probably a reflection of the relative success that the false teachers at Ephesus have had in leading women astray (5:11–15; 2 Tim. 3:6, 7). Elsewhere Paul has no qualms about blaming the Fall on Adam (Rom. 5:12–19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy 2:14&version=KJV[/quote]

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If a woman does not have this longing desire for a man, he has no power over her.
So God tells the man to love his wife like Christ loves the Church. In this way he keeps his wife having this longing desire for him and he has power of her. A wise husband will obey the Lord.

Loving your wife the way Christ loves the Church is no guarantee that she will love you back. I wish the church would stop teaching this garbage that she will. If she does not love righteousness she will actually despise the husband and his devotion to the Lord.

Christ loves the world and most in the world resent it and would still rather be their own authority. Christ's love is no guarantee that those who receive that love will themselves love in return. No guarantee whatsoever. The Bible's teachings about marriage are hardly the fix-all that the church likes to say they are. They are what husbands and wives are supposed to do whether it works to their benefit or not.

 

[ravindran_eee]

Hi, this is how I selectively quote. First click on reply. Where ever you want to break it up or just quote a portion type quote in brackets at the beginning, and at the end /quote in brackets
The quote="Deborah13, post: 883047, member: 4075" in brackets must be left at the very beginning so that the person gets the alert and it is known who is being quoted. Anything you don't want to quote, just delete. I hope that is clear enough to understand. Someone else may do better with that.

I think I got it Being a software engineer, it is a shame I don't even know this!! I spend a lot of time on XDA forums, where I never bothered to quote people

I did find this interesting writing from the Reformation Bible Commentary though....
2:14 Again Paul alludes to Genesis, this time to the account of the Fall (Gen. 3:1–6). The argument might seem unfair, since both Adam and Eve sinned. But Paul’s point is correct: Eve was the one who was “deceived” by the serpent. Paul’s argument here, with its emphasis on who was deceived, is probably a reflection of the relative success that the false teachers at Ephesus have had in leading women astray (5:11–15; 2 Tim. 3:6, 7). Elsewhere Paul has no qualms about blaming the Fall on Adam (Rom. 5:12–19; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22). http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Timothy 2:14&version=KJV

Hmmm.. I will pull out my reformation study bible and see what they have to say about Romans. Probably that's the way to take it. Sin entered through Adam as he was representative of humankind. The rest of the discussions (leadership role of men, etc) should have no bearings on this.[/quote]

 

[ravindran_eee]

Dear brother, the masculine noun “Man” used in Romans 5:12 is to be understood as Mankind or human beings (Adam is also used as Man, or human being). Eve did eat, but Adam chose to be one with his bride and partook also. This is an allegory of what Jesus (Second Adam) chose to do to be with us.

I might add that sin came by mankind, while grace and truth came by Jesus Christ if that helps. Blessings in Christ Jesus.

Sounded like Paul picks out Adam in this verse. As we can see in 1 Timothy, he picks out Eve. So clearly it is distinguishable.

 

[Deborah13]

Loving your wife the way Christ loves the Church is no guarantee that she will love you back. I wish the church would stop teaching this garbage that she will. If she does not love righteousness she will actually despise the husband and his devotion to the Lord.

Christ loves the world and most in the world resent it and would still rather be their own authority. Christ's love is no guarantee that those who receive that love will themselves love in return. No guarantee whatsoever. The Bible's teachings about marriage are hardly the fix-all that the church likes to say they are. They are what husbands and wives are supposed to do whether it works to their benefit or not.

You are correct and I worded that line poorly. It is true that there is never a guarantee when it comes to mankind, we are a fickle lot. The only love we have that is absolutely
guaranteed is the Lord's continued love for us.
A husband has no guarantee that his wife will respond in a Godly manner to his Christ like love, anymore than a wife has a guarantee that her husband will be a Godly husband if she submits to him.
I don't think the Lord gave us this teaching just to make another rule to abide by. I think it is because it is the formula for a Godly marriage, so that we can live in peace and our children can live in peace. God's laws glorify Him and are beneficial to us.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You are correct and I worded that line poorly.

I don't know about that. I was just going by the fact a pastor had said what you shared.

I don't think the Lord gave us this teaching just to make another rule to abide by. I think it is because it is the formula for a Godly marriage, so that we can live in peace and our children can live in peace. God's laws glorify Him and are beneficial to us.

I hope you don't think I was implying that the Lord's commands for husband and wife are just rules. They are indeed how a man and wife will live in peace, but it takes both of them following those rules for it to work. You can't have a good marriage when one or the other doesn't follow God's rules. I wish pastors would start recognizing this fact and stop saddling the responsibility for a successful marriage on the one person who wants it and strives to do what is right.


If you read the story in Genesis, you'll see that they are both at fault--Eve for listening to the serpent, and Adam for listening to his wife (yes, read it). It's an equal opportunity condemnation of mankind. I simply don't see in the story where Adam is responsible for what his wife did. She is clearly held responsible for what she did, and he is held responsible for what he did. I don't see an 'authority' issue there. It has to be read into the text. This is why I see 'Adam' as representative of the both of them--equal opportunity offenders cast out of the presence of God for what they each did individually who then populated all of mankind.

It's interesting that this issue of who's at fault in the garden is the only time you'll get all women in full agreement with the Bible about authority in marriage.

 

[Deborah13]

I don't know about that. I was just going by the fact a pastor had said what you shared.

I hope you don't think I was implying that the Lord's commands for husband and wife are just rules. They are indeed how a man and wife will live in peace, but it takes both of them following those rules for it to work. You can't have a good marriage when one or the other doesn't follow God's rules. I wish pastors would start recognizing this fact and stop saddling the responsibility for a successful marriage on the one person who wants it and strives to do what is right.

I don't think you were implying any such thing. I think I understand exactly what you are saying and I agree.

If you read the story in Genesis, you'll see that they are both at fault--Eve for listening to the serpent, and Adam for listening to his wife (yes, read it). It's an equal opportunity condemnation of mankind. I simply don't see in the story where Adam is responsible for what his wife did. She is clearly held responsible for what she did, and he is held responsible for what he did. I don't see an 'authority' issue there. It has to be read into the text. This is why I see 'Adam' as representative of the both of them--equal opportunity offenders cast out of the presence of God for what they each did individually who then populated all of mankind.

This was my list (in my first post) of reasons that I see in scripture, not that they are completely accurate or developed as they should me.

It took a sinful man to bring sin into the world, it took a sinless man to overcome it.
God did not tell Eve not to eat, Adam did. She should have listened to Adam. [and if she wasn't sure she should have asked God]
Eve was deceived by satan. Adam's sin was willful. [ I only pointed this out because it is used by Paul in 1Tim.,although I should have said the Adam was not deceived]

It's interesting that this issue of who's at fault in the garden is the only time you'll get all women in full agreement with the Bible about authority in marriage.

Now wait a minute buster, just where did this woman say that it was Adam's responsibilty? I think that if Adam had not eaten, no fall. By the same token if Adam had and Eve had not, no fall. They were conspirators in crime.
Eve clearly should have listened to Adam, she was to be his help-mate, not that other evil dude's.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Now wait a minute buster, just where did this woman say that it was Adam's responsibilty?

(Don't call me buster, and I won't call you babe. )

I was speaking generally of women.

Surely you have noticed that among women (in general) the husband's authority is up for debate except when it comes to assigning blame for the fall. Beyond that it's open for interpretation. Interesting, isn't it?

I think that if Adam had not eaten, no fall. By the same token if Adam had and Eve had not, no fall.

I agree.

 

[farouk]

As the saying goes, it takes two to tango.

 

[Edward]

The imputed sin of Adam (or Adam & Eve) is correctly a moot point once Christ shed His blood for us. The bigger point is that, as believers we are imputed unto righteousness through the Blood of our precious Lord, Jesus Christ. God does not see or remember our sin now and we are seen to be righteous by Him. Many Christians seem to be fond of saying how bad they are and have a hard time believing that we are righteous in the Lords eyes. Believe it brothers and sisters for this is a big encourager to ones faith and competency as a Christian who walks with God.

Romans 4:3
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness./(KJV)

Romans 8:1-4
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit./(KJV)

1 Corinthians 1:30
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption/(KJV)

There's lots more passages that say the same thing.

It's good to be humble, but it's also good to have identity.