# Regarding the fall of man



## WaywardNowHome (Jun 6, 2009)

This question may or may not have a simple answer. I have an idea of what the answer could be but I would like some confirmation before running off with my own interpretation of it. 



Genesis 3:6 said:


> When the woman 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, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.





Romans 5:12-14 said:


> Therefore, just as through one man sin entered in the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned--for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.



If Eve was the _first_ one to take the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden and she was the _first_ one to eat of it, why is it written in Romans that sin came through Adam? Was sin non-existent when Eve ate the fruit but only came into existence when Adam ate of it? Or did Eve sin before Adam but the imputation of his sin to his children not occurring until he himself ate of it?

But it does say that sin did not _enter into the world_ except through one man, which I assume is referring to Adam. This implies that sin did not exist in the world until Adam sinned. Right?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 6, 2009)

Adam was the man with ultimate responsibility. Adam was the Federal Head. There was a whole host of things for which he bore responsibility, one of which was government of our collective behavior.

Whatever may have been right or wrong about the state of his heart prior to Eve's willful act, that is less important than Adam's recorded response. We aren't told about his heart then, only how he chose afterward to respond.

Here is a possible scenario: Eve sins, bringing the curse upon herself (only herself, since she is no federal representative), and Adam chooses to offer to God to die in her place. I'm not saying it was even possible in those circumstances, but it is suggestive of an alternative reality. Adam was legally in an optimal position to offer himself, and perhaps still morally in position. There are ways in which his faith in God can be seen as here being tested, according to the Covenant of Works probation.

And Adam throws it away. His sin is not mitigated, but aggravated by his compounding moral failures. Eve's sin introduces sin in the world in a partial way, like the key in the lock. It is Adam who throws open the door of sin; it is he who completes the disaster.

Eve's sin contains the fact of Satan's deception. Adam's sin was sin against the light. It was fully intentional. There are additional ways to analyze their sins (e.g. empirical/rational), but I think I have addressed your question.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 6, 2009)

Eve was _deceived_ into eating, Adam did so _willfully_.


> 1Ti 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.


----------



## WaywardNowHome (Jun 6, 2009)

Thanks a lot, Bruce. You've answered my question and a few other ones that I would've asked in the future. My own conclusion was that Adam was indeed the federal representative _appointed by God_ and, therefore, only his sin(s) is/are counted on behalf of all men. As you said, the importance was in his recorded response.



Brad said:


> Eve was _deceived_ into eating, Adam did so _willfully_.



Brad, I'm a little confused as to what you are trying to say. The first impression I get from your statement is that sin is acceptable or somehow less heinous if the sinner is deceived into sinning. Can you elaborate?


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 6, 2009)

Well, can't vouch for all the implications that may flow from this concept, but I heard a message by a reformed Pastor who stated that there was a distinction. 

That Eve's sin was a result of the most subtle of deceivers appealing to her love for her husband and future children, that by procuring what the liar said the fruit had to offer she would improve the condition of those (as if their position then could be improved upon). 

But that Adam's sin was not a result of any deception, but one of willful disobedience. God had told him that everything in every direction from that tree was his, but as long as that tree stood, it stood as an emblem of his dependence upon God, and it crowded and frustrated him. His wife going first just gave him the excuse to go ahead and do it, and an alibi to offer God when questioned.

That was this Pastor's take. Others may find error in it, I don't know, but it sounded reasonable to this layman's ears.


----------



## WaywardNowHome (Jun 6, 2009)

Thanks for elaborating. It gives me some food for thought and things to ponder over.


----------

