# Did Adam break all 10 Commandments by eating the fruit?



## he beholds

In _Marrow of Modern Divinity_ by Edward Fisher, the author states that by eating the fruit, Adam broke all ten commandments. 

Thoughts? Agree or disagree? 

For context, here is the passage that states that and then the defence of this idea:


> Nom. But, sir, methinks it is a strange thing that so small an offence, as eating of the forbidden fruit seems to be, should plunge the whole of mankind into such a gulf of misery.
> 
> Evan. Though at first glance it seems to be a small offence, yet, if we look more wistfully 5 upon the matter it will appear to be an exceeding great offence; for thereby intolerable injury was done unto God; as, first, His dominion and authority in his holy command was violated. Secondly, His justice, truth, and power, in his most righteous threatenings, were despised. Thirdly, His most pure and perfect image, wherein man was created in righteousness and true holiness, was utterly defaced. Fourthly, His glory, which, by an active service, the creature should have brought to him, was lost and despoiled. Nay, how could there be a greater sin committed than that, when Adam, at that one clap, broke all the ten commandments?
> 
> Nom. Did he break all the ten commandments, say you? Sir, I beseech you show me wherein.
> 
> Evan. 1. He chose himself another God when he followed the devil.
> 
> 2. He idolized and deified his own belly; 6 as the apostle's phrase is, "He made his belly his God."
> 
> 3. He took the name of God in vain, when he believed him not.
> 
> 4. He kept not the rest and estate wherein God had set him.
> 
> 5. He dishonoured his Father who was in heaven; and therefore his days were not prolonged in that land which the Lord his God had given him.
> 
> 6. He massacred himself and all his posterity.
> 
> 7. From Eve he was a virgin, but in eyes and mind he committed spiritual fornication.
> 
> 8. He stole, like Achan, that which God had set aside not to be meddled with; and this his stealth is that which troubles all Israel,—the whole world.
> 
> 9. He bare witness against God, when he believed the witness of the devil before him.
> 
> 10. He coveted an evil covetousness, like Amnon, which cost him his life, (2 Sam 13), and all his progeny. Now, whosoever considers what a nest of evils here were committed at one blow, must needs, with Musculus, see our case to be such, that we are compelled every way to commend the justice of God, 7 and to condemn the sin of our first parents, saying, concerning all mankind, as the prophet Hosea does concerning Israel, "O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself," (Hosea 3:9).


----------



## TeachingTulip

Yes. 

Adam broke all of God's Law.


----------



## au5t1n

It's certainly interesting to think about. I suppose it works. Also:



> Jas. 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.


----------



## he beholds

I've always thought that we are guilty of all just as a matter of legal terms--but not that when I break one commandment, I am literally breaking all of them.

I think I can accept most of the arguments laid out by Fisher, except for the ones concerning the Sabbath and the adultery.

---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:15 PM ----------




austinww said:


> It's certainly interesting to think about. I suppose it works. Also:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jas. 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
Click to expand...

 
Here's how the ESV translates that verse:


> 8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. *10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. *11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.


----------



## Pergamum

I am not sure how "spiritual fornication" - which could mean any false belief - is breaking the 7th.

This all seems like a stretch.


----------



## Christusregnat

Pergamum said:


> I am not sure how "spiritual fornication" - which could mean any false belief - is breaking the 7th.
> 
> This all seems like a stretch.


 
Pergs,

Do you think that this passage would fit the "spiritual fornication" category?

James 4:4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.


----------



## Idelette

I would completely agree that they broke each of the commandments. I've actually read something similar before that was stated a bit differently that I thought was better. 

Regarding the adultery, it can be considered spiritual adultery in the sense that they had union with God and walked with Him in the garden before the fall, but they gave up their first love for another. In that sense, they committed adultery.


----------



## Pergamum

It's a metaphor. 

There is no lust of the loins involved.

Spiritual fornication would be more against the first 3 commandments.


----------



## Idelette

Pergamum said:


> It's a metaphor.
> 
> There is no lust of the loins involved.
> 
> Spiritual fornication would be more against the first 3 commandments.



Although the first 3 are related, they still don't convey the intimacy that they had with God prior to the fall. I think the book of Hosea makes it very clear how jealous God is for us, and how he does consider it spiritual adultery. Every aspect of the law is both physical and spiritual. It is more than just a metaphor.


----------



## Tim

Lately, I have come to understand that most (if not all?) sins actually break all of the 10 Commandments. For example, you are always violating the 5th commandment if you break any of the others, since any sort of sin dishonors our parents. One can go through the rest as well. 

If we can then take this one step further, what might this mean for our conception of the moral law? Should we view each of the 10 Commandments as being inseparable from the others? That is, ought we view the ten as really just a way of expressing a 'unity' of Law? Sort of a unity and diversity kind of thing?

Is there some theological vocabulary that could be used to express this thought?

---------- Post added at 06:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:20 AM ----------

Perhaps the James 2:10 passage posted by Austin above is relevant here?


----------



## Michael

I'm pretty sure Arthur Pink makes the same argument as the OP in his writings. 

You know, it's an interesting read but it seems like a stretch of practical implications to me. I don't know that we should go and try to connect dots further than the plain biblical fact that God forbade Adam a tree/fruit and Adam disobeyed. That suffices for me that God's law/command was broken and fully qualifies the subsequent history of man. No need to itemize...


----------



## tlharvey7

yes


----------



## Peairtach

The summary of the law is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength.

The definition of sin is "any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God" (WSC Q.14)

So the essence of sin is negatively lack of love to God, and since at every point we were created to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength, any lack of love to God, or withdrawl of love from God, is positively hatred to God.

The essence of sin is hatred to God, which involves a breach of all the Ten Commandments, because it involves a breach of the summary of God's law which is the golden string that holds these ten pearls together. 

Every time we sin in particular ways we express hatred to God, and Christ is God ! How awful a thing is sin, even in the believer, or particularly in the believer !

*Quote from Jessi*


> I think I can accept most of the arguments laid out by Fisher, except for the ones concerning the Sabbath and the adultery.



The Sabbath involves more than observing the Sabbath Day but also resting in God by faith every day. Adam did not know God as Redeemer but he was to rest in God by faith as his Creator, Sustainer, Providential Governor and Lawgiver every moment. If the Fall actually happened on the Sabbath Day that would have added to its wickedness, for what it would be worth.

Adam did in some sense spoil his sexual relationship with Eve because when they sinned they were ashamed of their physical as much as their spiritual nakedness, although there were only the two of them there and although they were husband and wife.

Respecting nakedness, by the way, I do not believe that if Adam had not sinned, we would all be walking around naked, e.g. commuting to work naked! If Adam hadn't sinned and they had children, they would have made clothes to hide their nakedness from their children and for added comfort. The anomally was that they were husband and wife and yet some kind of shame in their physical nakedness had appeared, although that reflected also spiritual realities.

How much Adam knew about this when he sinned is another matter. He probably knew a lot more than we often credit to him, because he was the most perfect specimen of a man that ever lived in soul, body and all the faculties of mind.


----------



## LawrenceU

Re: the adultery and the 10 Commandments.

In the sermon on the mount the very point that Jesus was making about this, and all the rest for that matter, is that the laws were not given regarding the sinful activity, per se. Rather, the violation of the Laws of God flows directly from a sinful heart. The laws against fornication and adultery were not given to curb licentious behaviours. They were give to reveal to man the utter disaster that is his heart and mind, that he is completely incapable of honouring God in his person. He connects all of the law, its keeping and violation, in the heart. So, yes, violation of one is a violation of the whole. If we do not embrace this whether we know it or not we have take a step toward Phariseeism.


----------



## he beholds

I understand and believe that were we to commit even one sin, we are guilty of breaking the Law. I just don't understand why we would say that Adam broke all 10 commandments in that one act of rebellion. 
Was it necessary that Adam break all 10 commandments to deserve death? No. One sin, or even the breaking of one specific commandment, would cause him to deserve, according to God's righteous Law, death. 
So I think to say that he broke all 10 commandments _might_ act as a defense for his punishment: "Well, it's not that he broke just one commandment--he broke them all, so of course he deserved death." 
I am not saying that Fisher was doing that, but it seems like a possibility:


> Nay, how could there be a greater sin committed than that, when Adam, at that one clap, broke all the ten commandments?


Also, that quote does not seem to support the idea that any one sin breaks all ten, since he sets this one aside as being the greatest sin _because_ this one broke all ten. I would think that _if_ this sin did happen to have none greater, it is more because of Adam's knowledge and closeness to God than because it categorically breaks each commandment. 

re: the Sabbath: at first I did accept Fisher's argument that Adam was guilty of breaking the fourth, b/c it seemed reasonable to say that he


> kept not the rest and estate wherein God had set him.


However, some say that the Sabbath was a creation ordinance. How could this have been a command if Adam was naturally already in rest? Instead, it would be that Adam was to work six of the seven days and rest the seventh. Also, since Adam was in a Covenant of Works, was he thus _not_ born into a rest?


----------



## Pergamum

Violation of one part of the law is breaking the whole law, because the law is a chain and to break one link is to break the whole chain. 

But what you guys are saying is that every sin breaks every link in the chain. While sin is connected, there are different sorts of sins - which is why we have 10 different commandments.

If I break the Sabbath, how am I lusting or murdering? 

I would like to see that this was an accepted belief of the Puritans. Gimme some citations from other writers.


----------



## he beholds

LawrenceU said:


> *So, yes, violation of one is a violation of the whole. If we do not embrace this whether we know it or not we have take a step toward Phariseeism*.


 
I would agree; if we don't accept that one sin makes us guilty of breaking the law or if we started putting some sin in the "not a good idea, but no damnation follows" category, that would be Pharisaical. However, to see that specific sins can fall in some categories but not others, I don't think makes one Pharisaical. 

I would say that yes, Adam's eating of the fruit was a sin against God (the first table) and his neighbor (the second table) since he hurt not just himself but his wife and his posterity. So perhaps in this way I do see that Adam broke the two greatest commandments, which are summed up in the 10 Commandments, but I don't think he broke each one of the ten in that instance.


----------



## Idelette

I think the issue is that when people look at the commandments they mainly see a checklist or something to be taken only literally and independent of one another. Yet, as we know, the Law is like a mirror it reveals both God's character as well as our own sinful nature. As Tim stated above, you can scarcely break one commandment without breaking the rest. They are so finely woven together, and uphold one another. Each of the commandments are not independent upon themselves, but relate to every other aspect of the law. For example, how can we honor our parents if we do not first submit to and honor God in our hearts? How could we not lust after other things if we are first not content in the estate that God has given us? How could we not commit murder and hate our brother if we do not first love God with all of our hearts? And so forth etc. In that respect, Adam and Eve did in fact break each of the commandments individually as well a whole. Personally, I think it's amazing that in the eating of the fruit Adam and Eve broke the entire law. We see in that, a reflection of our own character. And, I think it relates much to Christ's coming and full-filling the law perfectly and completely. That in the second Adam we see complete obedience, and a complete reflection of God's own character.


----------



## Pergamum

One sin DOES makes us guilty of breaking the whole law, because the law is a unit.

Just as one broken link in the chain breaks the whole chain.

However, one broken link which breaks the whole chain is different than every link being broken every time one link is broken.



Again, I would like to see citations from other theological writers on this interesting topic, before I dive into acceptance.


----------



## Peairtach

I think one of the important things that Fisher is trying to emphasise is the diabolical nature of the Fall, whereas for us who are born and shaped in sin, the "small" act of disobedience in eating a piece of fruit doesn't always seem so bad if we don't think about and meditate on just _how_ it was bad.

It was an utterly diabolic and satanic act on the part of Adam and Eve and its wickedness is seen to be exacerbated by many different considerations of the act. We are born with a fallen nature in solidarity with that wicked act.

Adam and Eve moved from being the angels of the Garden of Eden to being its demons.


----------



## jwithnell

The inter-connectivity of the law, and the real extent of the crime each time we break God's law shouldn't be minimized. (Henry Scudder's _The Christian's Daily Walk_ raises questions to ask oneself in relation to the 10 commandments. It can literally take me hours to pray through this in the extremely rare opportunity that I have had to do so.) However, trying to fit all 10 into the initial fall seems like a stretch to me. God said: "No." Satan convinced Eve to question God's word. They munched and we all fell. The text doesn't give us any more.


----------



## coramdeo

*For whoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)* I believe that we all are guilty of breaking them all, why should Adam not be guilty of all as well? I note that it does not say
"it is as though he is guilty of all" but" is" guilty of all. Is that correct exigitically?


----------



## he beholds

coramdeo said:


> *For whoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all.” (James 2:10)* I believe that we all are guilty of breaking them all, why should Adam not be guilty of all as well? I note that it does not say
> "it is as though he is guilty of all" but" is" guilty of all. Is that correct exigitically?


 Well, the ESV says "accountable," which is different than guilty and might fit along the lines of "as though he is guilty," so I think it depends on which version is more literal.


> 8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a tran


----------

