So I understand that I'm lagging back a bit on posts - right now the reading has us wrapping up Genesis - but I had an interesting thought about the fall that has been marinating over the last couple of weeks. Within Christendom, it seems to me that there are a select number of issues which instigate debate and discussion. For example, the whole works vs. grace will occupy amateur theologians for years to come. Another one of those is the Fall. Some believe that it was Adam and Eve's rebellion - others believe that Eve was foolishly deceived. One thing that seems to purvey the discussion however, is an attempt to understand the connection between the two seemingly contradictory commands given by God, namely to multiply and replenish the earth and to not partake of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In addition there has been much discussion of the nature of Adam and Eve's violation. Was it a sin in the sense that we understand now? Was it a transgression, as termed in the scriptures, and if so, what is a transgression and how does it differ from a sin that say we might commit?
I don't really claim to have a direct answer for these questions, but I did have a thought that could possibly have some bearing on these questions. It strikes me as interesting that when God issues the commandment to abstain from the fruit of the tree he does so to Adam only, before Eve is created and introduced into the Garden. This is the case in all three scriptural accounts of the creation and fall (Gen. 2:16-17, Moses 3:16-17, Abr. 5:12-13). I haven't been able to find a scriptural account where the commandment was given directly to Eve from God. I think it likely that she may have received it from Adam. I am not claiming that Eve was not responsible for the consequences of partaking of the fruit as well, but it strikes me that perhaps her accountability was less than would have been Adam's were he the one to have initially been deceived. Adam ended up partaking so that he could remain with Eve, not because he was deceived by Satan.
This seems to account for the confusion regarding the accountability of Eve's actions i.e. sin, transgression, etc. Maybe it was God's design that she not be given the mandate directly from Him. There is the argument that "Whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same;" however, I find it interesting that the laws of the gospel and of obedience was not yet revealed and Adam and Eve had not yet partaken of the promises associated with them. Also, it was later that Eve covenanted to obey Adam, as he obeyed the father.
I don't really know what I'm trying to pull out of all of this, but it seems to me that Eve was probably a lot less accountable than some people like to believe. Hers was not a rebellion, but rather a quasi transgression of some sort when you factor in the fact that she might not have received a direct mandate from God. It also seems to paint God's seemingly contradictory commandments in a new light. He did not necessarily create a situation where Adam and Eve were forced to Sin either by commission or omission.
I really want to hear what you think, and if you have any additional thoughts.
Love,
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
There is, of course, a fourth account - the temple endowment, which clearly represents Eve as being present when God gave the command re: the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
ReplyDeleteI believe Eve knew exactly what she was doing. She was to be the mother of all living [as her mother before her...(let those with ears to hear, hear)]. She could not be a mother in her present state and she knew so. When she perceived that partaking of the fruit would allow her to bear children, she knew it was what God wanted her to do. Of course, God knew there had to be a fall. Without a fall, Adam and Eve would have remained innocent in the Garden, alone, never bearing children and frustrating the entire plan for the Father's multitudes of spirit children.
The conflicting commandments were given as a "strategem" to deceive lucifer. Once he perceived that God had given a commandment, he was duty bound to try to get the man and woman to violate it. He played right into the Father's trap. I know of a scripture that suggests so, but it may take me a bit to find it.
The difference between a sin and a transgression is negligible. The latter usually entails culpability. The former may be adopting the lesser of two evils, but still requires the Atonement to absolve.
I may just have muddied the waters for you, I don't know... :-)
My thoughts,
Love, Dad
Hmmm. Well, I know that's the prevailing opinion, but I wonder if it is as clear scripturally as you make it sound. I don't think that the purpose of the Temple film is so much to clarify one way or the other anything that actually happened specifically in the garden, or in relation to the fall.
ReplyDeleteI just am not sure if I am willing to entirely embrace the idea that Eve knew exactly what she was doing, and in this small way saw the end from the beginning. We talk over and over about her limited knowledge, i.e. knowing the good from the evil, experiencing joy, etc. Yet then we are willing to attribute to her a thought process which would seem to require a greater understanding regarding spiritual cause and effect than she probably had in the garden. I don't think it would be disrespecting her at all to claim that maybe she didn't act out of a wisdom that she possibly didn't even have at the time.
Food for thought.
I'm not sure I'm ready to dismiss the endowment account as not being factual, at least in some regards. Seems to me the it has as much credence as the written accounts. Maybe Eve just wanted to have children and be, as she was entitled, "The mother of all living." From the endowment account, Adam seemed to understand that he must also "partake that man may be." If he understood that, at that point, there's no reason (in my mind) to think Eve didn't understand it also when she partook.
ReplyDeleteLove, Dad