1 Timothy 2:14 . . . . is Paul lying?

[Orion]

I was reading the second chapter of 1 Timothy, lastnight, and came across this:

14 "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

What is Paul saying here? Adam was SO very deceived. Why does Paul seem to suggest that only Eve transgressed? Am I missing something?

 

[handy]

Upon what are you basing your claim that Adam was decieved?

 

[Orion]

Was he not decived by the same spirit as Eve? That he would "be like God"? He didn't eat it just to please Eve.

 

[handy]

How do you know? Upon what are you basing your claim here. Other than your opinion?

Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting claim, that we need to suspect Paul of lying and all, but what are we to base this on?

Genesis clearly states that Eve "saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise". OK, she was decieved, by the serpents claims regarding the tree.

Genesis then goes on to relate, "...she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate." Nothing is said regarding Adam's motive for eating.

Later, when asked by God if he had eaten from the tree, rather than fessing up and just saying yes, Adam starts the blame game. His answer, "The woman who Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate."

Eve's answer to God when He asked her what she had done confessed, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Notice, Adam didn't make any claims that he had been deceived, just that Eve (whom God stuck him with) gave him the fruit and that he ate it. Adam's response was classic, "I wouldn't be in this trouble if it wasn't for her. And YOU were the one who put her here!"

I don't know if you have kids or not. I have two, and as a day-care worker I've worked with hundreds. One thing that I can attest to: It's human nature, so much so that kids as young as two are quite adept at it, to be pretty up front when they've been lied to and were truly deceived into doing something they're in trouble for, but to be defensive and start blaming others when they've done something they fully understood was wrong. Even without Paul's comments, I've always thought that Adam, for whatever reason, knew that he was sinning when he ate of the fruit.

 

[Orion]

God told Adam not to eat that particular fruit, yet he did. Someone convinced him to eat it. He didn't just decide to eat it in rebellion to God. Eve had to have told him what was told her (in her own deception). . . . . . thus being deceived himself into thinking that he TOO could be like God. Look, it may not SAY he was deceived, but there is no other explaination, unless Adam was very gullible or mentally deficient.

Here's another thought. If Eve ate the fruit, unless she didn't automatically know [then] what she did, then she became the deceiver in which Adam would have been deceived through.

If I am hearing you correctly, you are saying that Adam was not deceived, but openly decided to rebel against God, outside any other influences, and at that exact moment?

 

[handy]

Do you remember what the Tree represents? It represents our willing obedience to God. It represents the opportunity to rebel against God. And it was placed deliberately in the garden by God so that Adam and Eve would have to decide, not once, but on an ongoing basis whether or not they would willingly obey God. Eve was deceived into believing that she could eat of the fruit and not fall into the consequences that God had warned of. But, there is nothing to suggest that Adam was likewise deceived, and his actions and responses indicate that he wasn't.

So yes, I believe that when Eve ate of the fruit, Adam, even though he wasn't deceived into believing all the serpent said, decided to go ahead and disobey. And, do remember that we cannot know how long Adam pondered the Tree and toyed with the idea of disobedience. Perhaps it was days. It could have been eons, for at this point in time neither Adam nor Eve were mortal.

I know what you are trying to do here Orion, you are trying to question the veracity of the Bible as a whole by setting it up that Paul must have been lying about Adam not being deceived. If what Paul said isn't true, then we have 'proven' that at least this portion of Scripture is in error.

But, there isn't any particular reason to believe that Adam was deceived, so I'll just stick with the (to me rather obvious) conclusion that he wasn't. In which case, Paul wasn't lying. And the Bible isn't proved to be in error.

 

[Orion]

Regardless of my purpose. . . .. . . :-? . . . . . . . IF Adam wasn't deceived, but openly decided to disobey God, . . . .who was apparently there with Adam in the Garden, then I would have to ask WHY he came to a place to disobey, if he WASN'T deceived into thinking that he would be "like God". There had to be a reason other than Adam WANTING to disobey God. I wouldn't think it possible, especially if you are in direct communion with God. Even if for eons. To openly disobey, not being deceived in any way, . . . . makes me question just how good of an environment it was to make Adam openly be rebellious. :-? Wouldn't such direct contact with God be "all in all" for anyone?

 

[handy]

Well, it's true that Lucifer also had such an "all-in-all" direct contact with God and he rebelled as well. That's the trouble with making free agents, sooner or later, someone is going to disagree and rebel. Why should God have bothered....that's the question of the ages. But that He did is apparent, because here we are, rebelling all over the place. And, we're certainly not all deceived.

But, let's look at it from your point of view for a moment. Adam and Eve were both completely deceived by the serpent. Neither one openly rebelled against God, they were just duped and acted unwisely. If that were the case then, why God's ire? Why would God be so upset when His children simply misunderstood what all was going on? You said elsewhere that you don't accept a God who would kill the Israelites because of their open rebellion, why would you accept a God who would set up all of this, just because a couple of crazy kids got conned?

And, that just might be where your. . .crises of faith perhaps. . .is coming from, that you can't accept any of it. Therefore, it really would be better to prove that the Bible is wrong, because then we can go ahead and reject the admittedly uncomfortable parts. Sure, there is a lot of nice philosophy in the Bible, love your neighbor and all that, but those 'bad' parts about needing to be humble and obedient before God, accept Jesus as the Savior of your sins or face an eternity of damnation. . .yeah, I can understand why someone would want to be able to feel free to just throw all that out.

However, what if 'all that' were contained within the Scriptures simply because it's true, and God does love you enough to give you the whole unvarnished truth?

 

[Orion]

I hear what you're saying, but then what about the question of "what could it have been that would CAUSE Adam to openly rebel against God, when Adam was in God's presence?" In God's presence, there is suppose to be "fullness of Joy", . . . .so I can't see how Adam, who was IN that presence, would even contemplate (an act necessary before rebellion) being disobedient to God.


I wonder if the translators got that verse right. I've come to like the translation, The Message. I enjoy the wording of it. Here's how The Message gives those verses:

Adam was made first, then Eve; woman was deceived firstâ€â€our pioneer in sin!â€â€with Adam right on her heels. On the other hand, her childbearing brought about salvation, reversing Eve. But this salvation only comes to those who continue in faith, love, and holiness, gathering it all into maturity. You can depend on this.

 

[cyberjosh]

A word of advice: never trust the Message Bible to ever give you an accurate translation or meaning.
Young's Literal Translation has it, "and Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, into transgression came".

As handy has said, we do not know the exact reason Adam ate the fruit. As Adam puts it himself, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate". This most certainly is an excuse but it almost sounds like he was either ignorant of where the fruit came from (perhaps Eve brought it back with her), or he actually did know but figured "Hey, if SHE can do it then I most certainly can", or perhaps even less arogantly his curiosity got the best of him ("curiosity killed the cat" - or in this case the entire human race, spiritually). It is seen all throughout the Bible that sin is seductive and often contagious, it's not all too hard to imagine that Adam did it because he saw Eve do it (unfortunately).

~Josh

 

[Orion]

And I wish I could let it go at that. . . . . . I really do, but I have to question WHY Adam would either be arogant, curious, or duped. The first two beg the question about how he could do that sort of thing, knowing it was against God, where he had this "fullness of Joy", thus he would have nothing in him that was wondering what it would be like. "Fullness of Joy", to me, reads as "the person is complete." If it was the third, . . . he was duped, then he didn't sin at all, and then we have the problem for the verses that stated that "by Adam sin came into the world...."

 

[handy]

I'll refer you back to Lucifer again. He also had the fullness of joy, of being in the presence of God in the heavenly realms. He also fell into sin. And, with Lucifer, there is no question that it came down, very simply, to a conscience choice he made. After all, before Lucifer, there was no deceiver. Once Lucifer sinned, and was cast out of heaven, he became the deceiver and decieved Eve. However, since Lucifer had the ability to consciously choose to sin against God, why get hung up on the fact that Adam also had the ability to do so.

Why would God's creatures choose to turn against Him? Who knows, we can only know that it is true because we have.

Think about your own life. Think of the people who truly love you, care for you. Most of the times you want to make them happy, but if you're honest there have been those times, probably not often, but nonetheless there have been times, when you willfully did something that you knew would cause them pain. Why? What motivated you to cause someone who loves you pain? I think of when I was a teenager. I was basically a good kid and didn't cause my folks too much trouble, but there were times that I willfully sinned against my mom. (I was a little too afraid of my dad to do so.) I knew my mom loved me, I knew she only had my best interests at heart and I knew that I was pretty blessed with the kind of mom that I had, but still there were times when I looked right at her and willfully disobeyed her. Why would I do that?

It would be an excuse to chalk up my bad behavior towards my mom to my 'sin nature'. I was a Christian by the time I'm speaking of, and the power of any original sin had been broken, but I did it anyway. I sinned against her, not because I was powerless in the grip of sin, but rather because at the time, I just really wanted to do what I wanted to do, even though I knew it was wrong.

There is no reason to believe that Adam didn't have these same kind of motivations. As long as that tree was in the Garden, he had to choose to deny himself of it's fruit. When Eve came along, having eaten of it, he chose to partake of it.

PS, I also agree regarding the Message Bible. There is a big difference between a paraphrase of the Bible and a translation. While paraphrases can make for enjoyable reading, to really get at the meaning of any text, one should use a good translation.

 

[Relic]

Handy, you posted the same time I did.

And I wish I could let it go at that. . . . . . I really do, but I have to question WHY Adam would either be arogant, curious, or duped. The first two beg the question about how he could do that sort of thing, knowing it was against God, where he had this "fullness of Joy", thus he would have nothing in him that was wondering what it would be like. "Fullness of Joy", to me, reads as "the person is complete." If it was the third, . . . he was duped, then he didn't sin at all, and then we have the problem for the verses that stated that "by Adam sin came into the world...."

You don't seem to understand that Adam and Eve were given by God "freedom of thinking, freedom of choice" and when Satan entered the scene being a fallen angel, his influence was manifested. Adam and Eve were not then restricted in their decision making. They CHOSE to not obey, they CHOSE to not cling to the Truth God surrounded them with. God gave fair enough warning to NOT eat of that tree of knowledge OF Good AND evil. There were plenty enough trees (safe havens) that they could have stuck with. If you don't understand that God is not giong to limit our choices but that HE DID warn Both Adam and Eve to not go there because there would be consequences, then you go under the pretense that God's limits our choices.

Freedom of choice does not come without consequence, be it of a good one or not so good.

Adam was the leader of woman, it was his responsibility to lead Eve away from making a poor choice. Adam was probably right there when Eve was tempted and he didn't say a thing... he fell into the trap of Satan no differently than did Eve. The devil, many times uses others to influence us to go against the will of our Holy God. Adam and Eve are an example of the how Satan influences secondhandedly also.

God allows Satan to have freedom to roam this earth seeking whom he might tempt. Jesus was tempted by Satan also, BUT Jesus did not choose to listen to Satan. Jesus, the only one who did not sin IS our example of HOW TO RESIST THE DEVIL. Adam and Eve were not, even though they were in a paradise, they still CHOSE to disobey the fair warnings of God. How do you think Satan fell from heaven? He CHOSE to go AGAINST God. It's a matter of CHOICE. God does not make us like robots. If Satan fell from heaven can then anyone else fall from heaven by turning against the will of a HOLY GOD? IF we do not CLING to the WILL of a HOLY GOD, we are headed for a fall. Jesus came to save us from that fall into sin. If we don't cling to the HOLY SPIRIT of Christ Jesus, and repent when we have found ourselves to have made wrong CHOICES, then we are no less lost. Jesus is our SAVING GRACE. Grace is not a ticket to continue in being against the HOLY WILL of GOD. Grace is the means to come back to repentance and keep our eyes/heart focused on HIS GOOD AND HOLY WILL.

CHOICES. God is not giong to imprison us because we make bad choices. What imprisons us it OUR descision to NOT RESIST TEMPTATION OR TO REPENT From making those bad choices. We NEED to CLING tothe HOLY SPIRIT of Christ Jesus, our only means of resisting temptaion and falling into transgression/sin. When we resist the devils tempting AS DID JESUS (by quoting the HOLY WORD OF GOD) Then we are given power of the HOLY SPIRIT. Without the working POWER of the HOLY WORD OF GOD living in us, coming THORUGH is by way of the HOLY SPIRIT, that same HOLY SPIRIT that was and IS IN CHRIST JESUS, we are without hope, we doubt, we are confused, we follow after that which is neutral, luke warm, or totally against the HOLY WILL. That HOLY WILL is the WILL OF GOD/SPIRIT. No other spirit will protect us or provide for us in such a HOLY/PURE way.

 

[cyberjosh]

And I wish I could let it go at that. . . . . . I really do, but I have to question WHY Adam would either be arogant, curious, or duped. The first two beg the question about how he could do that sort of thing, knowing it was against God, where he had this "fullness of Joy", thus he would have nothing in him that was wondering what it would be like. "Fullness of Joy", to me, reads as "the person is complete." If it was the third, . . . he was duped, then he didn't sin at all, and then we have the problem for the verses that stated that "by Adam sin came into the world...."

Well sometimes there are ambiguities in the Bible that just are not elaborated on. I do however believe Adam sinned in eating of the fruit through.

I'm not sure if this helps or not, but the somewhat common conception that Adam and Eve were created perfect, lacking nothing, is not entirely accurate. It goes back to begging the question of why God created man in the first place, and how Jesus was given for man's sins before the foundation of the world (a very big topic). Man was created with need for a Savior, a need for God. Else choosing Jesus would have been unnecessary. In a way the Fall was the pointer to the Redeemer that they needed from the very start. But since God gave us freewill it had to be a choice, else he would have just created us perfect with Him in heaven from the outset I believe.

But back to intentions, Eve had no more reason to taste the fruit than Adam did. Perhaps (and I just thought of this) the nature of partaking of the fruit seemed much more benign to both of them, in that they mistakenly thought that the fruit was a means by which they could get closer to God. And in Christian terminology the idea fits, "The more we can be like God the closer we will get to Him and be conformed to His image", and indeed God said, "They have become like us, knowing good and evil", but they didn't count the consequences (nor probably realized them, else they would have been more detered from doing so, I am sure). It certainly is curious how in our (Christians) redeemed state we actually do now know the difference between good and evil, and there is to be (on our part) a constant recognition of the two and the pursuit of good in the Christian life, based on that (thus it seems the pursuit of the knowledge of good and evil is a legitimate one, that could bring one closer to God for those who could navigate between the two). So knowing good and evil is not wrong in itself, yet for some reason God did not want them to partake of the Tree. A test? I do not know, but I'll just take the text for what it does say.

 

[cyberjosh]

Handy's point about "If Satan could do it, then so could Adam", is valid as well. I mean we could go back further and beg the question, "Why did Satan fall away when he had everything, in the presence of God?" I agree with Handy that the answer lies in freewill of God's created beings. Satan probably had no idea he'd be kicked out of heaven for what he did, else he wouldn't have done it. Same for Adam and the Garden. In both cases it looked advantageous to do the wrong committed yet it turned sour. Such free will (no matter how well intended) apart from guidance from God (who is the only one who knows all things - and thus even consequences of things seemingly benign) will eventually trip up at one point or another. Thus the reason for God's whole redemption plan for man even before he created Adam and Eve (as I said in my last post, about how they needed a Savior and were not perfect). It's a lot to wrap your head around, but a lot of this goes back to how God does things and what he allows his creatures to do.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[handy]

And Josh's point about Adam and Eve being created perfect is also valid.

Remember what the first thing was that God said wasn't good? It was that it wasn't good for man to be alone. Even without sin separating Adam from God, it was God Himself who said that man needed more than just His presence.

 

[Orion]

I agree that this topic is very deep, and that the WHOLE of this topic may not even be known. I have always considered the "Adam and Eve" story to be very vague and not "the whole story", but a fraction of the complete. It reads too much like a parable as it is, not a literal story. Hence we may never know the whole of the story on earth.

Thanks for your inputs into this topic.