Why Adam and Eve sinned before eating the fruit.

[handy]

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.

I hear what you are saying, PR...but I do agree that Adam's sin was not just in eating the fruit, but deciding to do what Eve said to do, rather than what God commanded him to do. It was the decision that was the true sin...otherwise Eve would have been the one through whom death entered the world, as she ate first.

 

[Deavonreye]

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.

Then they didn't actually sin.

 

[Deavonreye]

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.

I hear what you're saying about Eve. I think this is the problem with the story itself. I would have thought that "god telling Eve the same thing he told Adam" was just an omission, and that it would have taken place. The story is rather vague. But anyway, I will have to do a bit of reading about Eve's part a bit more. Thanks for your input, handy.

 

[handy]

One thing you might find interesting as you take another look at Eve is to pay attention to what she says to Satan about not even touching the fruit. God did not say that Adam couldn't touch the fruit, just to not eat it. Somehow Eve got the commandment garbled, either Adam didn't tell it to her correctly, or she added that part about not touching herself. Either way, it's a small but important thing and shows that it's really important to get what God says right.

PR, I was thinking a bit more about your thoughts here and wanted to add, not to be contrary or anything, that Adam did know the consequences of eating the fruit because God told him what they would be: "...but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die."

Adam may not have fully understood what death was all about, but nonetheless God made it clear that eating the fruit would cause death.

 

[PouringRain]

Then they didn't actually sin.

I'm not sure how you derived at that conclusion based upon what I said. They sinned in their disobedience to God, but they had no knowledge of it until their eyes were opened, and the sin did not occur until they had eaten. If there is no knowledge of sin, there can be no sin (accountability of sin).

 

[PouringRain]

I hear what you are saying, PR...but I do agree that Adam's sin was not just in eating the fruit, but deciding to do what Eve said to do, rather than what God commanded him to do. It was the decision that was the true sin...otherwise Eve would have been the one through whom death entered the world, as she ate first.

I understand what you are saying, and why you believe this, but I disagree. I just didn't want to get into all of that here since it gets off-topic. Thanks for your reply!

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm not sure how you derived at that conclusion based upon what I said. They sinned in their disobedience to God, but they had no knowledge of it until their eyes were opened, and the sin did not occur until they had eaten. If there is no knowledge of sin, there can be no sin (accountability of sin).

Because if they "had no knowledge of it", this "sin", then how were they guilty of committing it? Cause and effect! If they had no knowledge of what "being disobedient to god" meant, then they cannot be held accountable. You said it yourself in your last sentence.

 

[handy]

I was thinking about this text in the context of our conversation here:

Mark Chapter 7: 14And he called the people to him again and said to them, "Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him." 17And when he had entered the house and left the people, his disciples asked him about the parable. 18And he said to them, "Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?" ( Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20And he said, "What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

Naturally, the context is clean/unclean foods, but the greater principle that Jesus is getting at is that food isn't an issue. What is in the heart of man is the issue. What was in Adam's heart, when Eve held the fruit out to him would be the issue, would it not?

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

What is Sin anyway?

I contend that sin is like a cancer.
Consider the theory that sin and evil create or should I say bring entropy into whatever system it (sin) is introduced. As long as the cancer of sin survives, the system will continue to drift further and further into disorder, pain, suffering, corruption, until finally, the system will cease to be able to live. So in this real applicable way we can see just how the wages of sin is death.

 

[PouringRain]

Because if they "had no knowledge of it", this "sin", then how were they guilty of committing it? Cause and effect! If they had no knowledge of what "being disobedient to god" meant, then they cannot be held accountable. You said it yourself in your last sentence.

You are still not understanding what I said. Once they ate the fruit they had the knowledge. At that point it was sin. Prior to that, the only knowledge they had was the order not to eat it. The eating of it was the sin, and at the same moment their eyes were opened to the sin that they had done. What they can not be held accountable for is their thoughts prior. God did not say, "Do not think of eating the fruit, for in that is the sin." It would not have made sense for him to give that command, for their eyes had not yet been opened to the knowledge. Once they ate the fruit of knowledge, instantly their eyes were opened to the sin--instantly they knew their disobedience, instantly they knew their shame, and instantly they understood the consequences of their actions.

 

[Deavonreye]

You are still not understanding what I said. Once they ate the fruit they had the knowledge. At that point it was sin. Prior to that, the only knowledge they had was the order not to eat it. The eating of it was the sin, and at the same moment their eyes were opened to the sin that they had done. What they can not be held accountable for is their thoughts prior. God did not say, "Do not think of eating the fruit, for in that is the sin." It would not have made sense for him to give that command, for their eyes had not yet been opened to the knowledge. Once they ate the fruit of knowledge, instantly their eyes were opened to the sin--instantly they knew their disobedience, instantly they knew their shame, and instantly they understood the consequences of their actions.

No, . . . .I understand what you're saying. . . . as it is doctrinal. What I am saying is that a person who did not understand it as sin cannot be held accountable until they KNOW it to be sin and act upon it. Until there is knowledge, there cannot be sin. Again, . . . YOU said, "If there is no knowledge of sin, there can be no sin (accountability of sin)." They didn't know their actions to be "sin". If you want to conclude that they didn't know they DID "sin", until this fruit opened their eyes, and they discovered that they had just "sinned", then they were framed. That's the only conclusion.

I have heard people state that they "still knew it was a sin, just didn't know why,. . .or about what death was". The tree is called the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil". If they already had the knowledge of what it meant to be "good or evil", then the tree was meaningless, except to serve as their downfall, as planned, and them created WITH the knowledge of sin and the desire to be disobedient.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: Adam did NOT sin before eating the fruit.

Eve ate the fruit but it was Adam who sinned. Adam was not deceived. We must consider that Adam was with Eve when she was being tempted. He was standing right there. He heard her say what she understood that God had said, "God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die." He did not correct her. The serpent was more cunning than any other creature and was attacking the man through his most precious gift.

The tree was not sin, touching it was not sin, considering it was not sin. God made no law as if He were the Mind Police. Adam was there (with her) and He had been told personally, "And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God spoke to prevent death. Death and separation from Him. The silence of Adam could well be used as a lesson to us, that we who know better are to resist temptation and trust on the Lord but even his silence was not sin. No, it was the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil that was sin and why? Because it would cause man to suffer. God is altogether Good. What did God do immediately after speaking to Adam about the fruit of the tree? It was then that He saw that one thing that was not good - "It is not good for man to be alone..." And seeing this He acted to give Him a most precious gift, the gift that brought with her the unity that we today continue to strive toward. But knowing better will not save us. Neither the knowledge of Good nor the knowledge of Evil can rectify the situation of our shame. Only the Righteousness of Jesus can cover us that we be not ashamed.

Love God with your whole heart, with all your strength and with all your mind... love each other as you love yourself. We strive and work and do know know that it is by His Gift alone that this union shall be accomplished. Men and women are one now and we are given to the 2nd Adam, our Lord Jesus, the Christ. We are his body. We have the mind of Christ. We are to love God first and foremost, not His gifts. Our trust and love is seen by our obedience.

"If you love me, obey me."

Only Jesus is sinless and we are joined into His death, being spared the righteous judgment pronounced. That is why it is by Him alone that any may go to the Father. These works are accomplished (from God's perspective) and we are to cast our eyes upon Him. Jesus, the 2nd Adam is the only one who has seen the Father and He has declared Him, and has not remained silent. His will is that we, together, come to the unity of the most holy faith that our Jesus acted on. Let us follow after Him in truth.

~Sparrow

 

[handy]

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.

Jeff had brought this up earlier and I think it's good to go back and take a second look at how this text from James applies to Adam and Eve...

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

Eve "saw" that the tree was good for food, that it was a delight to the eyes and that it was desirable to make one wise. Now, she was mistaken in what she saw, for she had been deceived.

But what was going through Adam's heart? We know he wasn't deceived, the Scriptures make that perfectly clear. I believe that he was drawn away by his own lust, enticed to sin and acted upon the sin.

At what point did Adam sin? This is the crux of this whole thread is it not. Was it when he put the fruit to his lips, or was it prior to that? I believe that it was prior to that, at the time he determined in his heart that he would put the fruit to his lips. There comes a point in time where every temptation that we have is either rejected or embraced. This is true with Adam as well. There may not have been knowledge of good and evil, but Adam knew God, he walked with Him daily in a sinless state and knew God's love for him. Adam was an adult and was wholly intelligent. He might not have known what evil and sin was, but he knew God and he knew that God told him not to eat from the tree. At some point, prior to that fruit passing his lips, he chose to disobey God. Disobedience to God is sin.

One of my favorite non-Biblical sayings is that people do what they want to. I truly believe this...that the things people do, they do because they want to do it. I don't believe anyone who says "I couldn't help myself" or "I didn't want to do it, he made me". Unless one is seeing a gun held to the head of one's child, people pretty much do what they want to do. (No, I am not saying that there are no victims of crime here, that isn't what I'm talking about.)

Adam ate that fruit because he wanted to. He knew what God had said about it. He might not have understood what evil was, but he certainly understood what God had said, and chose to disobey God. Yes, the consequences of what he did were not fully understood until after he did it, but he nonetheless knew he was doing something that God specifically told him not to do.

Spar...good point about the serpent getting to Adam through that which was his most precious gift.

 

[stovebolts]

No, . . . .I understand what you're saying. . . . as it is doctrinal. What I am saying is that a person who did not understand it as sin cannot be held accountable until they KNOW it to be sin and act upon it. Until there is knowledge, there cannot be sin. Again, . . . YOU said, "If there is no knowledge of sin, there can be no sin (accountability of sin)." They didn't know their actions to be "sin". If you want to conclude that they didn't know they DID "sin", until this fruit opened their eyes, and they discovered that they had just "sinned", then they were framed. That's the only conclusion.

I have heard people state that they "still knew it was a sin, just didn't know why,. . .or about what death was". The tree is called the "fruit of the knowledge of good and evil". If they already had the knowledge of what it meant to be "good or evil", then the tree was meaningless, except to serve as their downfall, as planned, and them created WITH the knowledge of sin and the desire to be disobedient.

I thought it was pretty clear. God said "Don't eat from that tree or you'll die".
Serpent says, "Naw, you won't die"
Eve said, "Hmm, looks good to me, I want that so I can be like God. Hey honey, c'mon over and try a bite".

the key word above is "I want to be like God". That was the desire.

In this case, sin is defined as willingly going against what God says based on your own conclusions. To put it in perspective, when we think we know better than God by going against his command, we set our selves up as gods. This is idolatry 101.

Adam and Eve both knew what was right and what was wrong. This can be attested by the exchange between the serpent and Eve. What your talking about is experiencing the effects of sin.

Going back to the passage from James I quoted earlier, James states that sin is conceived from one's desire. In the case of Eve, her desire was to be like God as she was being tempted by the serpent.

Again, I believe you are speaking on the experience of sin, and not the knowing of sin in and of itself. By way of example, I know that if I run a red light, I risk getting hit by another car. Knowing this is not the same as experiencing getting hit by a car. And although I've never been hit by a car, I can imagine it. But even so, my imagination can't come close to what it would be like to experience it... let alone death.

The simple lesson of Eve in the garden is that it is God who defines right from wrong, not us, his creation. We either obey, or we suffer the effects of sin as seen all around us, each and every day though the needless suffering of others mostly caused by our own hands, or our lack of interest in getting our hand dirty as part of the solution.

 

[handy]

Jeff,

I find it interesting that you are focusing on Eve, rather than Adam. Since we know Eve was deceived and we know that it was Adam through which sin and death entered the world, why the focus on Eve?

 

[Deavonreye]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I find it illogical to have a tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil, . . . yet them having the knowledge of what it is to be good and evil [in order to knowingly be disobedient]. Sorry all.

A question that ties in with the Adam and Eve topic, . . . . did god want them to "eat of this tree"?

 

[handy]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I find it illogical to have a tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil, . . . yet them having the knowledge of what it is to be good and evil [in order to knowingly be disobedient]. Sorry all.

A question that ties in with the Adam and Eve topic, . . . . did god want them to "eat of this tree"?

Second question first, because it's kind of obvious...No, that's why He told Adam not to eat of it.

God isn't some kind of sick psycho who is practicing "reverse psychology" here. He clearly told Adam not to eat of the tree, and why he should not eat from the tree.

If He had wanted Adam to eat of the tree, then He would have commanded him to do so. There is no reason to make something this clear murky.

As for this:"We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I find it illogical to have a tree that gives the knowledge of good and evil, . . . yet them having the knowledge of what it is to be good and evil [in order to knowingly be disobedient]. Sorry all."

If I'm following you, and I'll be honest, it's a little hard for me to get what you're saying here, I think the catch is the part of them having to have the "knowledge of good and evil" in order to sin.

Adam did not have to have the knowledge of good and evil in order to sin, nor did he have to understand what death or evil was. All he had to do to sin was to simply disobey God and do what God told him not to do.

Keep in mind, the tree is not call "The Tree of Sin". It is called the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." Adam's sin was not learning what evil was all about, it was disobedience to God. The fact that mankind learned of evil and that death entered into the world were the consequences of Adam's sin, not Adam's sin.

Even though Adam was fully grown and wholly intelligent, I think an illustration of a parent and young child is helpful here. When my kids were little, they had to stay in the yard. My reason for keeping them in the yard was because we had big, bad bulls in the fields who could run them over and kill them. Now, a little child has no real understanding of death, nor even an understand of what an 1800 pound animal can do to a 30 pound child. However, even at the age of three years old, both of my children could understand that when I said, "Stay in the yard because the bulls in the field can hurt or kill you" they were to stay in the yard.

If they had gone out into the field, they might have tragically found out what death or even serious maiming was all about, but their sin would have been to disobey me.

Am I making any sense here at all?

 

[Sparkey]

Jeff had brought this up earlier and I think it's good to go back and take a second look at how this text from James applies to Adam and Eve...

"But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."

...
Spar...good point about the serpent getting to Adam through that which was his most precious gift.

Handy, I enjoy discussion and the grace you have been given for this. We continue to sharpen iron with iron. I agree, it is good to look at what James said and appropriate to thread topic.

The Scripture:

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. Do not err, my beloved brethren.

James spoke of conception and the birthing process. Lust conceives and sin is born. Sin, in turn 'brings forth' death. There are subtle meanings to be found in the choices of those words. "... when lust has conceived ..."

--> When lust has syllambanō (conceived)...
1) to seize, take: one as prisoner
2) to conceive, of a woman

a) metaph. of lust whose impulses a man indulges​

3) to seize for one's self

a) in a hostile sense, to make (one a permanent) prisoner​

4) to take hold together with one, to assist, help, to succour

This is the same word that Jesus used: "[Mark 14:48 KJV] - And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and [with] staves to take me? (to syllambanō me?)"

Lust takes and from the fruit of that conception is born sin. "... it bringeth forth sin..." This "bringing forth" speaks of:
1) to bring forth, bear, produce (fruit from the seed)

a) of a woman giving birth
b) of the earth bringing forth its fruits
c) metaph. to bear, bring forth
​

It is the same word (tiktō) as has been translated "born", "bearing", "brought forth", and even "travail", in John 16 "A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world. And ye now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man taketh from you."

Jeff's point, that James also describes what happened in the Garden, is well made. We get insight into what the Lord taught about adultery in the heart being sin. We are to eschew evil and put on the righteousness of Christ. Understanding the parable of the Good Seed and necessity of action is at the heart of what James was saying.

- He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked [one]; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

~Sparrow

 

[Deavonreye]

Sparrow, I hear [and know] what you're saying. I just look at "the tree" different than common christian doctrine/dogma. If the tree gives the knowledge OF good and evil, then logically, before one "eats its fruit", the knowledge of what IS "good or evil" is unknown to them. They wouldn't be able to even comprehend what "disobey" means.

As per the second question about "whether god wanted them to eat this fruit", . . . why even make it something that was desireable? Why not make it a "stinking bog of the knowledge of good and evil"? There is a great YouTube video that hits on this point about "Adam and Eve Take 1". God's plan was for them to fall, so there must have been a temptation placed in the garden for them to be tempted with, as well as allowing "the serpent" in it.

 

[stovebolts]

Jeff,

I find it interesting that you are focusing on Eve, rather than Adam. Since we know Eve was deceived and we know that it was Adam through which sin and death entered the world, why the focus on Eve?

Ha, leave it to a woman to draw that out

Honestly, it was simply my cliff notes version and I'm being lazy

Why you picking on Adam anyway? He was just doing what Eve told him to do :toofunny