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.

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?

__________________
Joel Lee
Redeemer Hoboken Church (attending)
Hoboken, NJ

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.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Eve was deceived into eating, Adam did so willfully.

__________________
Brad
Member- Eagle Heights PCA
Winchester, VA

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

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, 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?

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.

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