# When did Adam and Eve sin?



## duke

Hello,

I am currently studying through the first 11 chapters of Genesis with the Bible Class of young people I teach.

We are coming to Genesis chapter 3 next week. I have a question mostly regarding the interpreatation of events leading up to the eating of the fruit. Most commentators seem to suggest something like the following from John Currid's commentary on Genesis (Vol 1.) published by Evangelical Press:

page 116 "Humanity's descent into sin was not the result of a mere bite into a fruit - but rather it was a complex process of wilful disobedience and action"

and page 119 commenting on 3:6 "This play on words underscores the woman's fallen state in the sense that her lust for the tree is seen as 'good' in her eyes."

Dr Currid seems to suggest that the woman was fallen BEFORE she took the fruit and ate.

So did Eve sin BEFORE eating the fruit? If so when was the fall? If not then how would you explain the fact that many commentators seem to suggest lust and pride and twisting of God's word all before the actual eating of the fruit? 

Was there more to God's command in 2:16-17?

Hope you can help.

Duke.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I think you have to make a disctinction between the temptation and the sin. Adam and Eve were tempted, and wrestling with that temptation is not sin. But once you decide to give in, then you have sinned. It's important not to rest so much on speculation about man in the garden. There's so much we don't know. I think it's better to leave it where the WSC leaves it;

Q. 15. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
A. The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created, was their eating the forbidden fruit.


----------



## BobVigneault

Though the sin was manisfested by an act of obedience it was born in the will and unbelief. The greater question that I wrestled with was not so much "when did Eve and then Adam sin" but "how could a creature, made in righteousness, with everyway inclination beign Godward, sin?"

I was most illumined by Dabney's response. You may need an old dictionary to help with the antiquated language but I loved wrestling with this section of Dabney's sytematic. I modernized the language when I taught it but it must be on my home computer. God's blessings on and through your teachings Duke!

[quote:d0ae275ed6]The mystery cannot be fully solved how the first evil choice could voluntarily arise in a holy soul; but we can clearly prove that it is no sound reasoning from the certainty of a depraved will to that of a holy finite will. First: a finite creature can only be indefectible through the perpetual indwelling and superintendence of infinite wisdom and grace, guarding the finite and fallible attention of the soul against sin. This was righteously withheld from Satan and Adam. Second: while righteousness is a positive attribute, incipient sin is a privative trait of human conduct. The mere absence of an element of active regard for God"(tm)s will, constitutes a disposition or volition wrong. Now, while the positive requires a positive cause, it is not therefore inferable that the negative equally demands a positive cause. To make a candle burn, it must be lighted; to make it go out, it need only be let alone. The most probable account of the way sin entered a holy breast first, is this: An object was apprehended as in its mere nature desirable; not yet as unlawful. So far there is no sin. But as the soul, finite and fallible in its attention, permitted an overweening apprehension and desire of its natural adaptation to confer pleasure, to override the feeling of its unlawfulness, concupiscence was developed. And the element which first caused the mere innocent sense of the natural goodness of the object to pass into evil concupiscence, was privative, viz., the failure to consider and prefer God"(tm)s will as the superior good to mere natural good. Thus natural desire passed into sinful selfishness, which is the root of all evil. So that we have only the privative element to account for. When we assert the certainty of ungodly choice in an evil will, we only assert that a state of volition whose moral quality is a defect, a negation, cannot become the cause of a positive righteousness. When we assert the mutability of a holy will in a finite creature, we only say that the positive element of righteousness of disposition may, in the shape of defect, admit the negative, not being infinite. So that the cases are not parallel: and the result, though mysterious, is not impossible. To make a candle positively give light, it must be lighted; to cause it to sink into darkness, it is only necessary to let it alone: its length being limited, it burns out.[/quote:d0ae275ed6]


----------



## duke

Thanks for the responses. So Dabney seems to take the same approach as Currid and other modern commentators when he says "the failure to consider and prefer God's will as the superior good to mere natural good." This is before Eve took the fruit and ate it.

I still can't get my head around this one. The WSC mentions that they fell when they ate the fruit. Prior to this they didn't sin? Could not sin?

Did Eve LUST for the fruit? If so, was it sin?
Did Eve want to be like God? If so, was it sin?
Did Eve twist God's word? If so, was it sin?

I'm tending to fall on the interpretation that says they were simply deceived. They still had to obey God but were deceived by the serpent/Satan. Their first sin was eating the fruit. That was the first time they sinned. Even though they were deceived they were still responsible to obey God and therefore when they disobeyed God he punished them as he promised. But I can't see that Eve and Adam sinned before taking the fruit and eating it.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I think it is wise to refrain from too much speculation about what happened in the Garden, but Scripture does teach us some very interesting aspects about the Fall, which are worthy of note and meditation. 

One thing that I find interesting is the conversation between Eve and the serpent. The serpent questions Eve about what God said, which I think sows doubt in her mind. Her response is revealing because she claims that the prohibition extended beyond merely eating the fruit to even touching the tree, which is not quite what God said. I think this conversation gives us an insight into the working of sin (see also Romans 7) as it is conceived and results in the "fruit" of disobedience. Thus, was sin born in the heart and progressed by adding to God's Word and was consumated in the outward action of eating the fruit and then hiding from God.


----------



## BobVigneault

Some more food for thought. We are always quick to accuse Eve of adding to scripture. Isn't it possible that Eve (or Adam who would have been the one who taught her the law) was putting a hedge or a fence around the law? "If I don't touch it, then I won't be tempted to eat it".

The pharisees got carried away with "building a fence around the law" but isn't setting hedges a wise practice?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

[quote:306042e616="maxdetail"]Some more food for thought. We are always quick to accuse Eve of adding to scripture. Isn't it possible that Eve (or Adam who would have been the one who taught her the law) was putting a hedge or a fence around the law? "If I don't touch it, then I won't be tempted to eat it".

The pharisees got carried away with "building a fence around the law" but isn't setting hedges a wise practice?[/quote:306042e616]

I understand the desire to avoid temptation, but Eve went further than merely building a fence. She actually misquoted God and ascribed to Him words that He did not say:

Genesis 3.2-3: 

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.


----------



## duke

So was misquoting God a sin? If so, was this actually when she fell rather than when eating the fruit?

I do not think I am trying to speculate beyond scripture in asking this question and my previous ones. I just want to know why most interpreters seem to suggest that Eve sinned before actually eating the fruit. Are they right? If so then the fall was before the eating of the fruit. No? 

Somebody has just informed me that there is a book on this subject written by a PCA minister. Apparently Richard Pratt from RTS has endorsed it. I think it is called "A second look at the first sin" or something like that. Anybody aware of it?


----------



## BobVigneault

Andrew, I'm just saying that the command was never given to Eve and we deduce that it must have been taught her by Adam. Adam may have misquoted or put a fence around the law. The scripture does not say that Eve added to scripture or that she sinned in doing so.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

[quote:1d7e52327d="maxdetail"]Andrew, I'm just saying that the command was never given to Eve and we deduce that it must have been taught her by Adam. Adam may have misquoted or but a fence around the law. The scripture does not say that Eve added to scripture or that she sinned in doing so.[/quote:1d7e52327d]

Are you saying that Eve's quote of God's command was accurate?


----------



## duke

Granted that Eve's quote of God's command is not acurate and that she was not created when it was given and therefore had to have been told it by Adam - are we then saying that she did not knowingly misquote God? Was she giving the serpent an answer that was true i.e. that is actually what she thought the command was?

I don't think we can speculate that much. 

I'm still left thinking that Eve was deceived and the first sin was breaking God's command i.e. eating the fruit.

The alternative is that she knowingly sinned before eating the fruit.

Duke


----------



## duke

Ra McLaughlin at www.thirdmill.org has some thoughts on this issue:

"Also, the traditional idea that Eve sinned by saying "or touch it" doesn't sit well with me because Moses called no attention to this statement in the curse/judgment of Genesis 3:14-19. If this had been a sin, it seems to me that God would have said something about it later, and/or that the serpent would have picked up on it and used it to his advantage. Also, we really have no way of knowing that God did not say this. The account we have is certainly greatly abbreviated, and God may have actually said these words when he gave the initial command, and/or he may have said them later. One might also argue that Adam added the words -- Eve was not around when the command was originally given (Gen. 2:16ff.). In any case, I'm hesitant to call it a sin since the Bible neither calls it a sin nor indicates that Adam or Eve was punished for the addition of these words."

"I think Eve sinned before she ate the fruit only by deciding she was going to eat the fruit. I don't think her wording was sinful..."

Full test here http://www.thirdmill.org/qaot_answer_main.asp/section/qa/subnav/ot/file/99899.qna

Duke.


----------



## BobVigneault

That's exactly what I was fumbling toward.


----------



## duke

Okay ... I e-mailed Dr John Currid on this one since it was reading his comments that spark my thoughts.

He has essentially replied by saying it was her sinful heart that caused her to take the fruit and eat ... there was nothying magical in the fruit that made her sinful. So from this I can only conclude that he thinks she was fallen before eating the fruit (by 'eating' I do mean the decision and act - one package if you like).

He also makes reference to NT teaching on sin being first born in the heart and then leading to action. However, was the world before the fall not perfect? 

I am totally confused now. Must seek God in prayer and rely on the Holy Spirit (which I don't do nearly enough).

Duke


----------



## BobVigneault

Duke,
I believe Dr. Currid is absolutely wrong. That is a bizarre interpretation I have never heard before.

It's my contention, following Dabney, that sin occurred when Eve set her preference (love, election, choice) on something and preferred it above God and His Word as the only source of Truth. Free will is the ability to choose that which we desire most. Eve, though sinless, choose a source of revelation that was not from God. She really was the first empiricist, she tried to discover truth apart from God's direct revelation. She trusted her eyes and touch and taste above the absolute authority of Gods Word. God has stamped his glory upon every created thing but Satan convinced her that the stamps were not valid.

Blessings!


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I think too much dissecting is going on. The sin of our first parents was not the moment of biting into the forbidden fruit, or of chewing, or of swallowing. It was finished then, completed then. There was a point where an apprehension of the temptation by the mind and heart turned from resistance to collapse, and passed a kind of point-of-no-return. But in defining the sin, we don't merely find that point (if we could, as if it were a battle at [u:bc1380af9a]one isolated point[/u:bc1380af9a], and not a simultaneous assault) and then say, "everything from this point forward constitutes the sin." There is an area-of-indefiniteness, a fog of the battle, where analysis is futile.

Its like asking when was the battle of Waterloo, or Stalingrad, or Gettysburg lost (or won). Even if you choose a decisive moment (assuming you choose correctly) that moment can never for an instant be amputated from the whole complex of the battle. The play of the field led up to that moment, and choices were made after it which, had something else been done, the result had been very different. Napoleon lost THE BATTLE, one that had a beginning, middle and end. He didn't just lose the end of it.

Here's some more fodder for analysis:

1) Eve's language [i:bc1380af9a]does[/i:bc1380af9a] indicate a certain "softening" of God's command, as if she has to defend him against unreasonable harshness (the Serpent sets her up for this with his initial misconstruction). But she goes too far. God [i:bc1380af9a]had[/i:bc1380af9a] said in essence, "Don't eat it--because I said so." Death is set forth as a penal judgment for disobedience. 

Eve's reinterpretation of God's command uses the language of "concern" as if God had said, "Don't eat it, dears, LEST you die." Here she (perhaps unwittingly or carelessly) diverts attention from the naked authority of God's will, setting forth death primarily as an unfortunant consequence to everyone. "God" she says, "is much more reasonable than you give him credit for, Mr. Serpent. His command makes perfect sense too me!" 

The Serpent strikes at that very "softening" of God's Word when he counters with an explicit contradiction of God's threatened [i:bc1380af9a]penal[/i:bc1380af9a] sanction of death. "God is NOT reasonable; he is simply an authoritarian bully! YOU have misunderstood him, not me."

2) Part of the sin was in assuming a "neutral stance" toward God's Word. It was an assertion of autonomy. Instead of staying under submission to God's Word, we find Eve "weighing" God's Word against the Serpent's. "[i:bc1380af9a]I[/i:bc1380af9a] will now decide who is more trustworthy."

3) In addition to being deceived, Eve sins [b:bc1380af9a]emperically[/b:bc1380af9a] (by testing). Adam's sin appears more of the [b:bc1380af9a]rational[/b:bc1380af9a] sort--"Eve, you ate it! You seem OK to me; You have the goodies, huh? I'm not going to be left at a disadvantage!"


----------



## Fernando

*Did Eve misquote God?*

It is a feature of biblical narrative in the Old and New Testaments that quotations are rarely (if ever; I can think of no instances myself) exactly the same as the original quote. One person will make a statement, this will be quoted in another context by a different person, and the quoter will add some new information to the original quote. The one case that leaps to mind is the variations between the different accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts. Compare them and you will see that the conversation between Paul and the Lord is different in each version. Is Paul or Luke misquoting the Lord? I think not. I suspect it is a matter of reinforcing certain information by repetition without being redundant, while adding new information to the story. Good story telling, if you will.

If I can come up with more examples (I know there are a number in the OT historical books) I'll post them.


----------



## BobVigneault

Fernando,
forgive me if I am misunderstanding you. Are you implying that there is no divine preservation of the scriptures - that the Holy Spirit wrote and preserved the integrity of the scriptures? Yes, there are translational variances but if you throw out the doctrine of the preservation of scripture then the Bible loses it's integrity, meaning and authority at every verse and on every point. 

What are you trying to say?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Max, I don't think Fernando is directly questioning biblical inspiration or integrity. We do sometimes find the [i:2c25b5e9f3]fulness[/i:2c25b5e9f3] of someone's language (or meaning thereof) from the accumulation of evidence.

But, Fernando, that is not the same as saying that Gen. 3:2-3 and 2:16-17 necessarily constitutes such a conflation. Does a study of the text draw us toward or away from that conclusion? Isn't it true that differences (significant or subtle) can also indicate corruption? Of course it can. So that question cannot be solved by merely suggesting the use of a certain hermeneutical device. 

Let me challenge the [i:2c25b5e9f3]import[/i:2c25b5e9f3] of your statement. We have to deal with the ONE report of Eve's conversation with the Serpent. As far as we know, it is as close to a perfect quotation as it can be. It's not strictly a recollection, or someone's version of what happened. It [i:2c25b5e9f3]is[/i:2c25b5e9f3] what happened.

We know what God said with precision (Gen 2:16-17). The [i:2c25b5e9f3]differences[/i:2c25b5e9f3] Eve introduces are legitimate points for analysis, and, as I argued above (exegetically and theologically), one of them (at least) serves as the point of concentration of the Serpent's attack upon her. It is evident by the [i:2c25b5e9f3]sacramental[/i:2c25b5e9f3] nature of the matter being dealt with, that the Trees were specially functions of formal [i:2c25b5e9f3]worship,[/i:2c25b5e9f3] and we are aware from the totality of Scripture of the overarching regulative principle in regard to worship. I find it powerfully telling that [i:2c25b5e9f3]first[/i:2c25b5e9f3] we should find Eve [i:2c25b5e9f3]adding[/i:2c25b5e9f3] to the prescriptions God laid down, "neither shall ye touch it."


----------



## BobVigneault

Holy mackeral,
In all due respect I think introducing sacrementalism and RWP into this text can only be done with a wheelbarrow full of isogesis. I'm all for (within this theological forum) straining for gnats and dissecting to near absurd proportions but to read church polity into Eve's quote is to return to a pre-reformation hermeneutic. Just my two cents.


----------



## Fernando

*Eve - "adding to Scripture"?*

[quote:e7fc029242]Fernando,
forgive me if I am misunderstanding you. Are you implying that there is no divine preservation of the scriptures - that the Holy Spirit wrote and preserved the integrity of the scriptures? [/quote:e7fc029242] 

You are misunderstanding me, but I forgive you 

I start with the presupposition that the Scriptures are divinely inspired and preserved. I am trying here to account for the difference between the two quotations of God's command to Adam and Eve. Just because the first quote says "God said A and B" does not mean there is a contradiction for Eve to say "God said A, B, C, and D." As I said, this is a common feature of biblical narratives, and this is one way to account for it that preserves the integrity of Scripture. 

In the case of Eve, this certainly seems more likely than an explanation that would make Eve already guilty of lying about what God said in response to the Serpent's question.

I've got too much on my hands to search for other examples of this kind of quotation in the Bible right now. Maybe next week.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:dc3fdf43d2="duke"]Granted that Eve's quote of God's command is not acurate and that she was not created when it was given and therefore had to have been told it by Adam - are we then saying that she did not knowingly misquote God? Was she giving the serpent an answer that was true i.e. that is actually what she thought the command was?

I don't think we can speculate that much. 

I'm still left thinking that Eve was deceived and the first sin was breaking God's command i.e. eating the fruit.

The alternative is that she knowingly sinned before eating the fruit.

Duke[/quote:dc3fdf43d2]

I haven't been following this threead, so this may be of no help. My thought on the sin; I believe it began when EVE started conversing with the devil. Is it not sinful to even converse with the prince of darkness? Are we not to shun all that is in direct contradiction to God? Surely EVE knew whom she was chatting with. Resist the devil and he will flee; was she resisting or entertaining the conversation. Flee, yet you enter into temptation. Doesn't look as if she was fleeing......


----------



## Contra_Mundum

[quote:2fdf6ae23d="maxdetail"]Holy mackeral,
In all due respect I think introducing sacrementalism and RWP into this text can only be done with a wheelbarrow full of isogesis. I'm all for (within this theological forum) straining for gnats and dissecting to near absurd proportions but to read church polity into Eve's quote is to return to a pre-reformation hermeneutic. Just my two cents.[/quote:2fdf6ae23d] Holy Puritans, Batman! (I couldn't resist...)
Max,
Dear brother, I can't make you agree with the conclusions I've drawn, but I'm far from being out on a limb somewhere in medieval allegorizing. We have to read the Scripture in both an exegetical context (the analogy of Scripture) and a theological context (the analogy of faith). I'm operating off the central supposition that [i:2fdf6ae23d]worship[/i:2fdf6ae23d] is the ultimate expression of human existence (WSC 1), and it is the Bible's central theme. Therefore we're going to [i:2fdf6ae23d]constantly[/i:2fdf6ae23d] be finding glimmers of it in many unexpected places, and in places we should have expected to find it, but weren't looking for it. I am not [i:2fdf6ae23d]developing[/i:2fdf6ae23d] the doctrine of the RPW from this passage. I am [i:2fdf6ae23d]assuming[/i:2fdf6ae23d] it already proved from clearer portions of Scripture, and [i:2fdf6ae23d]finding[/i:2fdf6ae23d] present here in this passage as well.

It is common enough in Reformed circles to recognize the Trees as Sacraments (e.g. see Witsius, EoC; Calvin, comm. Genesis, etc.). They were signs and seals of the covenant God made with Man in the Garden. They were integral to the proper worship of God in that context. So, frankly, what God had to say with respect to them can't be divorced from worship, and I would argue, must of necessity show its fullest expresion in the very act of worship. And how is God to be worshipped? Was it within Adam's delegation to decide how God was to be approached, even in Paradise? The very existence and [i:2fdf6ae23d]dictated right use[/i:2fdf6ae23d] of the Trees militates against that conclusion. It appears that God has always been careful to spell out the terms and conditions under which he is properly to be reverenced. Moreover, that this should be everlastingly necessary is evident, I think, from an application of the doctrine of God and the Creator-creature distinction.

It is with this understanding, then, that I come to my analysis of Eve's response to the Serpent. God gave very clear directions about the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (TKGE). Eve's expressions are not merely [i:2fdf6ae23d]interpretive[/i:2fdf6ae23d] of God's command, but evidently go beyond it. "Don't touch the TKGE," is a conscience-binding proposition. Did God say that? No, he did not. Eve is adding to the command of God with regard to a Sacrament, an element of worship. "[u:2fdf6ae23d]Lest[/u:2fdf6ae23d] you die." Did God say that? No, he did not. He gave no REASONS for them not to eat of the TKGE, but rather a PENALTY for so contradicting his will.

As I said, you don't have to agree with my conclusions. But it would be nice to see some alternative reflection, and not merely dismissal of them.


----------



## Scott Bushey

[quote:9182892189="maxdetail"]Andrew, I'm just saying that the command was never given to Eve and we deduce that it must have been taught her by Adam. Adam may have misquoted or put a fence around the law. The scripture does not say that Eve added to scripture or that she sinned in doing so.[/quote:9182892189]

Max,
Why do you believe that the command was not given to EVE? All men are under the commands of God, even the unborn. Possibly, I am not following you here?


----------



## BobVigneault

Thanks for asking me to clearify that Scott.
I am referring to the fact that Eve had not been formed when God had given the command to Adam. I'm concluding (speculating) that the command was passed onto her by Adam. 

I threw out the possibility that Adam may have passed the command on and added a 'fence around the law' by suggesting they not touch the forbidden fruit. 

God bless you


----------



## Puritan Sailor

God walked in the garden with Eve too. It's not a stretch to think that He filled her in on the rules, maybe even before He presented her to Adam. Granted it's speculation at this point. But God was Eve's God too. She had a personal relationship to Him even though Adam was her federal head.


----------



## BobVigneault

The point I was making way back near the beginning of this thread was in response to the numerous preachers who I have heard say something like:

"Eve was twisting scripture" or "Eve was adding to scripture". Scripture does not say that Eve did anything to scripture. Adam and Eve were the two smartest people that ever lived. I was suggesting the possibility that Adam and/or Eve may have placed a hedge about the law which is not an unwise thing to do. 

Modern example - I will not ride alone in a car with the opposite sex so that there can be no oppotunity for indiscretion or even the appearance of sin.

A pastor should not counsel a woman with his office door closed.

Ancient example - It is wrong to use the Lord's name in vain, therefore we will use the name Adonai instead.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

[quote:df27d37325]Scripture does not say that Eve did anything to scripture.[/quote:df27d37325] 
Without words to this effect [i:df27d37325]in the Bible[/i:df27d37325]: "And Eve added to God's Word," do you say we may not determine this? 

These facts are indisputable: Gen 2:16-17 tells us what God said. The report of Eve's language in ch 3:2-3 includes changes and additions to the first report. 

It is for the exegete to [i:df27d37325]demonstrate[/i:df27d37325] how the apparent changes are, in fact, not changes (but additional information not included in the first report). Otherwise the surface presentation is to be accepted. 
[quote:df27d37325]I was suggesting the possibility that Adam and/or Eve may have placed a hedge about the law which is not an unwise thing to do.[/quote:df27d37325] 
The text says Eve said: "God said ... do not touch it." THAT is a conscience binding proposition, NOT a "hedge" such as you describe in modern examples. It is a SIN to disobey God's Word. So, the question is still "Did God say that or not?" 

"Hedges" are individual choices. Sometimes they are prudent. Sometimes not. Avoiding the covenant name "Jehovah" was simply a foolish superstition that violated Scripture when his name was to be proclaimed. We may not teach as doctrines the commandments of men.


----------



## BobVigneault

Ok, good stuff Bruce. I'm gonna surface for a bit and get some air. :bs2:


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Please forgive me if I seem sometimes like a pit bull. I still have a lot to learn, not the least about the gentle art of persuasion.


----------



## BobVigneault

Bruce,
your ability to build an argument, your passion for Biblical truth are God glorifying and are to be commended. You take these arguments deeper than I am able to follow. You are certainly on the right board - you are a puritan in all the good ways. 

My only caution, and I'm not saying you're guilty of this, but the caution for us all is to be careful to never let our theological system become the filter for our exposition of scripture. We must be Bibline first and reformed second. 

Keep fighting the good fight my brother. You will fight it where many of us will be unable to keep going.


----------

