Why Adam and Eve sinned before eating the fruit.

[Deavonreye]

People like to state that "Adam and Eve sinned when they ate the fruit". But that cannot be true. They would have had to have "sinned" before even taking a bite. According to Matthew 5:28, it is clear that "sin" takes place before the action does, because people are punished for what they think. This verse is evidence that people are guilty before even acting on the actual action. If it is true with ONE sin, it must [therefore] be true for any sin.

 

[Oats]

People like to state that "Adam and Eve sinned when they ate the fruit". But that cannot be true. They would have had to have "sinned" before even taking a bite. According to Matthew 5:28, it is clear that "sin" takes place before the action does, because people are punished for what they think. This verse is evidence that people are guilty before even acting on the actual action. If it is true with ONE sin, it must [therefore] be true for any sin.

sin is a condition of the heart

just thought i'd add that interesting segway

 

[elijah23]

People like to state that "Adam and Eve sinned when they ate the fruit". But that cannot be true. They would have had to have "sinned" before even taking a bite. According to Matthew 5:28, it is clear that "sin" takes place before the action does, because people are punished for what they think. This verse is evidence that people are guilty before even acting on the actual action. If it is true with ONE sin, it must [therefore] be true for any sin.

Then I might suggest two sins were committed. The first sin was to contemplate eating the apple. The second one was to eat the apple. I would say eating the apple was the more serious sin.

It would be like robbing a bank, maybe. It might be a sin to contemplate robbing a bank, but you don’t get into trouble until you rob it, do you?

 

[Deavonreye]

Then I might suggest two sins were committed. The first sin was to contemplate eating the apple. The second one was to eat the apple. I would say eating the apple was the more serious sin.

It would be like robbing a bank, maybe. It might be a sin to contemplate robbing a bank, but you don’t get into trouble until you rob it, do you?

Not according to Matthew 5:28. The thought makes the person just as guilty.

 

[Oats]

Then I might suggest two sins were committed. The first sin was to contemplate eating the apple. The second one was to eat the apple. I would say eating the apple was the more serious sin.

It would be like robbing a bank, maybe. It might be a sin to contemplate robbing a bank, but you don’t get into trouble until you rob it, do you?

first they were tempted, then they decided, then they ate


you are right...of course

 

[elijah23]

Not according to Matthew 5:28. The thought makes the person just as guilty.

Matthew 5:28 does not say there aren’t degrees of adultery. It is a sin to look lustfully at a women, yes, but you are going to get into a lot more trouble if you rape her, I think.

 

[Deavonreye]

Matthew 5:28 does not say there aren’t degrees of adultery. It is a sin to look lustfully at a women, yes, but you are going to get into a lot more trouble if you rape her, I think.

To us, an actual rape or committing of adultery WOULD be worse. But that's not what is stated in Matthew 5:28. That person has effectually committed adlutery with the woman, thus "sinned". According to the verse, he is guilty by mearly thinking of it.

 

[elijah23]

To us, an actual rape or committing of adultery WOULD be worse. But that's not what is stated in Matthew 5:28. That person has effectually committed adlutery with the woman, thus "sinned". According to the verse, he is guilty by mearly thinking of it.

Matthew 5:28 doesn’t say that there are different degrees of sin. It simply says that looking lustfully on someone is adultery. Right?

 

[Deavonreye]

Matthew 5:28 doesn’t say that there are different degrees of sin. It simply says that looking lustfully on someone is adultery. Right?

That would be the connotation. Before someone can actually commit a "sinful act", the mere thought of it has caused them to "sin" already. Sin #1 is the thought. Sin #2 happens if/when the action is made upon the thought.

 

[stovebolts]

How about we let James clear up the issue?

James 1:13-15Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

 

[Deavonreye]

How about we let James clear up the issue?

James 1:13-15Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

So is James saying that sin comes before the action within one who thinks it first, like as described in Matthew 5:28?

 

[Lloyd]

Once again it seems as though you're asking a question that you won't actually accept an answer for. It doesn't matter what anyone posts, you'll find a reason to not fully accept the answer.

I ask again, what is your motive? Turn your questions to God with an honest heart and you might receive the answers you're looking for. I don't think you want an answer though, you're looking to disprove our faith at every opportunity, hence the constant nit-picking of every area you feel you can capitalize on. You seem too wrapped up in your own logic, your actual intelligence is your downfall, and I say that with no disrespect or without being patronizing, you're obviously clever but it's causing you to lean on yourself, not God.

Maybe we can talk outside of a thread, via a PM. I don't want to come across as some righteous person, I am nothing, and all glory is Gods, but my initial feeling is that your motive is not one of intrigue but one of fault finding. Am I wrong?

Anyway...good day brother.

 

[handy]

That would be the connotation. Before someone can actually commit a "sinful act", the mere thought of it has caused them to "sin" already. Sin #1 is the thought. Sin #2 happens if/when the action is made upon the thought.

I think there is a difference between tempting thoughts and lust in the case of Matthew 5:28.

It's one thing to see a person and have a tempting thought enter in and resist the temptation within the the thought process. Most Christians will understand what I'm saying here that it's quite common for there to be "thought wars" within one's mind when one is faced with a tempting situation. Actually, the old comic strip parody of a red devil on one shoulder and the white robed angel with a halo on the other shoulder comes from this very fact, and it was what Paul was referring to in Romans 7.

What Jesus was referring to in Matthew 5 though is when someone allows the lust to reign free within one's heart. When one essentially tells the angel to get off and rolls the idea of being with someone other than one's spouse around in the mind, even to the point of getting a bit of a thrill on. What Jesus is saying is, even though one didn't physically act upon the temptation, the fact that one is indulging in lustful thoughts about someone is showing that one is not being faithful to one's spouse.

At it's most basic level, sin is disagreeing with God about the rightness or wrongness of something. If a woman is happily married and sees Mark Wahlberg walking down the street and spends the rest of the afternoon in thinking about hunky Marky and how nice it would be to be with him, she is essentially disagreeing with God that one needs to be faithful to one's chubby hubby who long since turned in his six pack for a pony keg. No, she might never have the opportunity to be with Mark, but nonetheless it's the attitude of saying to God, "There's nothing wrong with this fantasy, it's not hurting anyone" when God tells us that we are to be physically, mentally and spiritually faithful to one's husband.

So, if I see Mark Wahlberg and think to myself, "Man, he just keeps getting better and better", but stop things there and don't allow lust to enter in...no sin. No sin, because I am agreeing, once the thoughts start to turn to lust that God is right, it's not right for me to lust after Marky who is happily married, instead of my dear, wonderful Steve.

But, if I say to God, "There's nothing wrong with fantasizing, everyone does it and it won't hurt my hubby" and spend the next hour or so googling images of Mark...then I've committed adultery in my heart.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm just going to ignore. . . .

handy, I hear what you're saying. What I'm saying is that before a person even commits to acting out, they have decided it in their heart. Thus, my point is, Adam and Eve both were in the same mindset that they wanted to eat the fruit before they did so. This wasn't just one of them deciding to do so. They both did, and at the same basic time.

I'm gone from my computer for the rest of the evening.

 

[handy]

Walking through your posts here for clarity:

According to Matthew 5:28, it is clear that "sin" takes place before the action does, because people are punished for what they think. This verse is evidence that people are guilty before even acting on the actual action.

What I'm saying is that before a person even commits to acting out, they have decided it in their heart.

There is an important distinction to be made between being "punished for what they think" and "deciding in their heart"[to act out a sin].

You are absolutely correct about Adam (not Eve, I'll get to that). Adam did indeed sin in his heart when he determined to eat the fruit. He placed...the fruit...love for his wife...his own desires...whatever, I don't know exactly what was going on in his head, above obedience to God. God had said, "Do not eat from this tree" and Adam decided, before he ate the fruit, that he didn't agree with God's decree. So, yes, Adam's first sin was not eating the fruit, but rebelling against God.

Not so Eve, because Eve was deceived by the serpent. There is a difference between consciously deciding to not obey God and honestly thinking that what the serpent was saying was truth, even if it was a lie.

But, your OP seems to state that just thinking about something is the same as sin, when this isn't necessarily so. Thinking about something tempting is...well...temptation and even Christ was tempted. The difference between Adam and Christ is this: Adam, in a Garden of food of which he had been freely invited to eat his fill, when presented with the idea of disobeying God regarding the one fruit, followed through on the thought and ate. Christ, having had no food for 40 days and being offered bread chose to obey "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God".

Not disagreeing with you on this one, Deavon, just pointing out a difference in thinking and determination. It's an important distinction.

Hope you have a good evening!

 

[Deavonreye]

I still think that Eve would have had to made the decision to be disobedient before eating this "fruit". Every action must first be contigent upon the heart giving into the temptation.

Let's look at it another way . . . . . and it ties into the thoughts of "Jesus's temptation".

A false "temptation" is one where the "temptation" would never even be acted upon because of the mind/heart that hears it. For example: If someone told me that I could have an amazingly happy life, filled with extravagance, money, fame, . . . IF I choose to marry someone of the same sex, . . . that wouldn't be a temptation for me because I know that it is disgusting. In the same way, anything that Satan would have "inticed/tempted" Jesus with would be the same thing, . . . looked upon it as disgusting in light of what he knew. That is hardly "temptation".

On the other hand, if someone told me that I could have an amazingly happy life, filled with extravagance, money, fame, . . . IF I choose to be with someone of the OPPOSITE sex, but live together outside of marriage. . . that would be a temptation for me. I would have to decide to act upon it before actually acting upon it, or else I wouldn't be able TO act on it. It's a "cause and effect" paradigm. This would have been the only way Eve [and Adam] could have "sinned", . . . before the actual act. Else, if they only knew AFTER the act, then they would have been unjustly accused.

 

[handy]

As for Eve, you said, "I would have to decide to act upon it before actually acting upon it, or else I wouldn't be able TO act on it. It's a "cause and effect" paradigm. This would have been the only way Eve [and Adam] could have "sinned""...and this is exactly true with Eve, that she did not "decide to act upon it (it being the thought to disobey God). Which is why she didn't sin, she was deceived and acted under deception. Adam did sin because he knew it was disobedient to God, but did so anyway. This is why the eyes weren't opened until after Adam ate of the fruit.


I get your point about "false temptations". I'm not sure I'm willing to say that Jesus was falsely tempted by Satan, but I have always felt that Satan's temptations of Jesus was far more for our benefit rather than for Jesus'. If Jesus had faced Satan on a full tum after a good night's rest in a comfy bed, it probably would have fallen in the "false temptation" category. But, although Jesus is eternally God the Son, He was also, at the time, fully human with a human being's physical limitations. 40 days of privation and discomfort can test anyone.

That said, I brought up the temptation of Jesus by Satan more because of the comparison between Adam and the fruit in the midst of plenty and Jesus and the bread after 40 days of fasting in a wilderness. However, we do know that Jesus was nonetheless tempted in all sorts of ways.

I think the temptation that probably was the most serious challenge to Jesus was the cross itself. It was the whole purpose of His coming, yes, but nonetheless, we know that in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was sorely tested and prayed that He would not have to endure the cross. Yet, in the end, He overcame the temptation to not go through with it by stating "Not My will but Thy will be done." This is the essential answer to every temptation known to man since the Fall...not my will but Thine be done...for sin is always, always rebellion against God by following our own will rather than what we know God desires us to do.

 

[Deavonreye]

I think that Jesus's "temptations" is getting away from the topic, but it is another point I've wanted to touch on because I still would say that any of the "temptations", even the cross, wasn't a true "temptation" unless the temptation was one that could have happened. Let's forget the whole notion of whether one part of "god" could have a will seperate from aother part of "god", the fact is, in order for a TRUE temptation, it must be one that the person is actually capable of. If Jesus says, "I and the father are one", then even the "not my will but your will be done" is suspect. . . . . in my opinion, of course.

But as per the topic, I'm not sure if I have ever heard anyone state that "Eve didn't actually sin". But if we say that Adam would have had to express a desire TO disobey god "by desiring to do what Eve wanted over his god", then I think that it still must be concluded that Adam sinned in his heart before actually performing the action.

I'm still not sure how Eve "listening to Satan" would "not be a sin", though, and even her decision being made prior to "taking the bite".

 

[PouringRain]

I didn't read through the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been mentioned already..... since we are talking about Adam and Eve, it is important to note that the tree they ate from was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It was not until they ate of it that their eyes became opened to their sin. Prior to that, they would not have had knowledge of sin. They could not have sinned in their heart prior, because they would not have had any knowledge of it. The ability to reason the consequences of their future actions did not exist.

When we talk about mankind post-Adam& Eve, (or including Adam and Eve after eating the fruit), now we can speak of individuals who can understand consequences to their sin, and have knowledge of sin. A man who looks at a woman lustfully has sinned in his heart, because he now has the knowledge of what his actions are and he can reason out the consequences. (Just to use the lust example.)

Adam and Eve were like a young child. Mom says do not go into the street, but the young child is not able to understand the potential consequences of the actions, nor do they understand death at that age, and often nor do they have an awareness of things beyond their own myopic view. This is how Adam and Eve were. If you ask a child if he should run into the street, he will tell you that mom said no, but at the point when he is running into the street, he is not even aware of his disobedience until it already happened. As adults we are different. We are quite aware of our actions, of sin, of consequences, of right and wrong, etc. When Adam and Eve's eyes were opened-- they became aware.

 

[handy]

If Jesus says, "I and the father are one", then even the "not my will but your will be done" is suspect. . . . . in my opinion, of course.

As I am drifting away from the topic, I'll agree to disagree with your opinion on Jesus' temptation. :nod

But as per the topic, I'm not sure if I have ever heard anyone state that "Eve didn't actually sin". But if we say that Adam would have had to express a desire TO disobey god "by desiring to do what Eve wanted over his god", then I think that it still must be concluded that Adam sinned in his heart before actually performing the action.

I'm still not sure how Eve "listening to Satan" would "not be a sin", though, and even her decision being made prior to "taking the bite".

Oh, the fact that Eve was deceived is quite biblical. Walk through these texts with me, and I think you will agree that the bible teaches that Eve was deceived and Adam decided to sin...

1 Timothy 2:14 "And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression."

Here it is stated, flat out no "interpretation" necessary that Eve was deceived and Adam was not.

Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned..."

This text clearly states that sin entered into the world through one man. Since we know that Eve ate the fruit prior to Adam, it follows that because Eve was truly deceived, she "fell into transgression" as opposed to "deciding to disobey God". Romans 5 carries on this theme throughout the rest of chapter 5 as it compares how Adam's sin resulted in the fall of all men and Christ's obedience results in the justification of life to all men. (Note: off topic but for clarity, justification of life isn't saying all men will be saved, but that Christ's death provides the justification for all to be saved.)

Another interesting passage to consider is Genesis 3 after the fall.

God asks, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?"

Here is Adam's answer: "The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me from the tree and I ate."

God reinforced that He had commanded Adam not to eat from that tree. Eve wasn't on the scene yet, the commandment was given to Adam alone. You can check that in Gen 2:15-25. Adam, when confronted with what he had done, blames not just Eve, but God Himself, for the sin of eating the fruit.

When God asked Eve what had happened, she states, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

When God then hands down the consequences of the sin, note what He states to each person present:

To the serpent He says, "Because you have done this, cursed are you more than all cattle, ...and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed..."

So, the serpent, solely because of his actions is cursed and God sets enmity between not the man and the serpent, but the woman and the serpent.

To Adam, God says, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying 'You shall not eat from it'; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. ... till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust and to dust you shall return.'"

Here we see that death does indeed come through Adam and God clearly tells us why, because Adam listened to Eve rather than to God.

Eve received no "Cursed are you" type of statement. God tells her that her pain in childbirth would be greatly multiplied and that her desire would be for her husband and he shall rule over her. That's pretty much what Eve faced.

This is why I believe that Eve was deceived rather than purposely sinned.

As for Adam, yes, I agree that his sin started before he ate. God Himself reinforces this idea when He cursed Adam saying that Adam listen to the voice of his wife rather than to what God said.

Is it a sin to listen to Satan? No, not particularly. We know this from the story of Job when God Himself listened to what Satan proposed. Even if Eve had obeyed what her husband told her rather than followed through on eating the fruit, there would had been no sin just because she listened to Satan. It's not a good idea to listen to Satan. I don't make a habit of it myself. But, it's not sin just because Satan says something to us and we listen. And, when Satan is telling us to do something that God has commanded us not to do, that would be temptation. Temptation is not sin.