web analytics

Genesis – The First Marriage Problems Continued

We have already covered that the reason all sin and die was because Adam sinned and died, as Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 state. We have covered that the woman did not sin in eating from the tree, but rather she was told by God she could eat of all the fruit trees. We already covered that her spirit and body were multiplied from Adam’s, like any child, and that this is the case with children also. And so why she died, and could sin, and had her eyes opened was the same reason why the children of Adam would also inherit this same spiritual state. The woman died because Adam died, as was the case with their children.  See Last Chapter. Taking Rom 5 and 1 Cor 15 literally, let’s look in more detail at what the Bible says happened:

 

The MAN walked away from the 6th day having been told by God:
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you(si) may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you(si) shall not eat, for in the day that you(si) eat of it you(si) shall surely die. (in the Hebrew all the “you” are singular) Gen 2:16-17
(See all these singular/plurals for yourself)

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. And God said, “See, I have given you(pl) every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you(pl) it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. (in the Hebrew all the “you” are plural) Gen 1:28-30

The WOMAN walked away from the 6th day having been told by God:
Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. And God said, “See, I have given you(pl) every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you(pl) it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. (in the Hebrew all the “you” are plural) Gen 1:28-30

Here we see that God  told the man he could freely eat of all the trees, but also commanded the man to not eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, before the woman was made. God is not recorded as having given the woman this command. In fact, the woman was directly told by God that all the fruit-bearing trees had been given to them for food, without any exception mentioned in what God told her. At the same time this was reiterated to Adam, but without the exception mentioned.

From the woman’s perspective: God told her she could eat from all the trees, and told the man that he could eat from all the trees.

From the man’s perspective: God said she could eat from all the trees, but that he could eat from all the trees except for one. There was one tree he was commanded not to eat from, and if he did he would surely die. In front of him, God told the woman she could eat from all the trees.

This is all the man knew at the time. One one hand, he was told to not eat from the tree. On the other hand, God hadn’t commanded the woman this, and told her she could eat from all the trees. This was what he knew, and all he knew. Adam knew that he knew something that the woman did not know, and also he had to figure out what to do with it.

As God’s command was not repeated, it seems clear that Adam told Eve about what God had said to him before she was made. If we are to assume that God repeated this command to Eve, then we would be putting words in God’s mouth, adding to the Bible Words of God that God is not recorded to have spoken. Such is dangerous. If God said it, then it would be recorded, and we must not add Words from God that He is not recorded to have said. Therefore, we can only conclude from God’s Word the Bible that we are to understand that Adam relayed information to the woman about what God had said before she was made.

Adam had this most accurate option:
He could have just told her the truth, that while God told her she could eat from any tree, that God told him, before she was made, that he could not eat from 1 tree or he would die. And he didn’t know why.

But when we read what the woman believed, which she told the serpent, it becomes clear that the facts of what God said were not relayed to her accurately by Adam.
Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.
And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You(pl) shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?”
And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You(pl) shall not eat it, nor shall you(pl) touch it, lest you(pl) die.’” (in the Hebrew all the “you” are plural) Gen 3:1-3

The woman believes that God said they both should not eat of the tree, nor touch it, or they will die.

God goes on to twice confirm that His command was singularly to Adam:
Have you(si) eaten from the tree of which I commanded you(si) that you(si) should not eat?” Gen 3:11
(in the Hebrew all “you” are singular)
God confirms for the first time that He said to Adam singularly that “you should not eat.”
God could have said,
“Have you eaten from the tree I commanded you(si) that ‘you(pl) should not eat’?”
But this is not what the text says. When God says “you should not eat”, He is repeating his command given to Adam in Gen 1, which reads in the singular, and here also is repeated in the singular. God makes it clear and confirms here that the command to not eat was solely given to Adam.

Then to Adam He said, “Because you(si) have heeded the voice of your wife, “she ate from the tree” of which I commanded you(si), saying, ‘You(si) shall not eat of it’: Gen 3:17
The “you” here is singular in all instances. God confirms a second time that He said to Adam singularly that “you shall not eat of it.”
God could have said, “that I commanded you(pl) saying ‘You(pl) shall not eat of it.” But this is not what the text says. It is singular and God’s command was just addressed to Adam. Also it is confirmed here that it was spoken only to Adam. This is a 2nd witness by God of what His original command was, even specifying what He said most precisely, and so there are 2 witnesses of God’s original command being to Adam alone.

God confirms twice that His command was given to Adam singularly, and was not given to them in the plural. All three times are recorded in the Hebrew, for us to see this. All three times as it is recorded in the Bible, God gave the command to Adam alone, with a singular-tense “you”, and not the plural-tense “you” that would show God gave the command to both of them.  It is also recorded that God directly told the woman that she could eat of all the trees, and that Adam was also there when this was said.

The woman seemed to sincerely believe what she told the serpent, and had no reason to lie to the serpent. She could have told the serpent, “Well God said he couldn’t eat of it or he would die, but I think that applies to me too, and I suggested, and we both agreed to not even touch it.” But she didn’t say that. Truly, she seemed to believe what she said to the serpent, which is that God said They must not eat of it, and that God said They must not touch it, or They would die. And because she believed what she said, it seems most likely that she was told this, and did not make it up herself. To me, what she said to the serpent shows that she was not the originator of this information. It was told to her, and she believed it, and she did not herself make it up.

And so,
1. because Adam knew God had told the woman she could eat of all the trees (Gen 1:27-29)
2. because she had not existed when God gave him this command to not eat
3. because God spoke the command to the man singularly, in singular tense
4. because the most simple explanation that does not add to the Words of God in the Bible is that Adam told Eve about this command
5. because Eve’s understanding clearly was not correct, yet this is what she believed
6. because “not touching” is an obvious addition to what God said which Adam told her about
7. because saying God said “they” when He said “you” in singular, is an obvious addition to what God said which Adam told her about

My conclusion is that Adam lied to Eve.

The most simple and logical explanation is that Adam took a different option than the simple truth, which was to tell her this instead:
He told the woman that despite what God had told her directly, which was that she could eat from all the trees, that there was more that God had said only to him, before she was made. He told her that God had said that they could not eat of this 1 tree, or touch it, or they would die.

Whereas Adam had this most accurate option of the simple truth:
He could of just told her the truth, that while God told her she could eat from any tree, that God told him, before she was made, that he could not eat from 1 tree or he would die. And he didn’t know why.

The argument of the man lying to the woman has much weight to it, as when God reiterates his command to Adam twice more, God always addresses Adam in the singular “you” and quotes His command as “you” in the singular and never in the plural. This shows a conflict between what God said which remained consistent, and what Adam was told and what Eve reported. God twice confirms that the instructions to the man were singularly to him.

And let’s just be clear on one thing: the Bible calls this the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It is not called The Tree of the Knowledge of Using Logic to Tell Truth from Lies. The fact is that both the man and the woman were made to have working logical faculties from the beginning.  The man used logic to name the woman, and she used logic even in knowing which tree it was she had been told they could not eat from. Logic and reasoning to tell contrast between truth and lie was already inherent in both of them. They did not gain the ability to use logic from the Tree. But what they did not know was Good and Evil, and they did not understand that the Truth is Good and that Lies are Evil.

And some people might say this was a misunderstanding, perhaps that the woman heard the man wrong or was confused about what he meant. Well, he was with her a while, even with her as she ate. If in her words to the serpent she revealed that she had misunderstood Adam’s words to her, why didn’t Adam speak up and correct her misunderstanding? Also, how difficult is it to understand the difference between “I’m telling you not to eat or touch this or you will die” and “God said not to eat or touch this or we will die”. Do you have a hard time understanding the difference between these statements? Then why would she? Was she dumb?
Or on the other hand, was the man dumb? Was he incapable of finding the words to explain the situation accurately? Really, how hard is it to say the truth accurately, when it is this simple? It is the difference between “God said” and “I say”. How hard it that?
If God had not made them capable of understanding words, they wouldn’t have been able to understand anything He said to them, so surely they understood the words that they heard. Their brains worked fine in this regard. And I would think anyone smart enough to call a woman a wo-man, “because she was taken out of man” would be smart enough to know the proper words to use to accurately tell the woman what God had said to him. There really seems no room for a misunderstanding.

More evidence is that, in Hebrew, you and you are spelled differently, which I would like you to see.
The singular you will (not) eat is תֹאכַל which seems to be pronounced “tahell”.
And the plural you will (not) eat is תֹאכְלוּ which seems to be pronounced “tahelloo” or “tahelv”.
The point being that
1. they are clearly written differently, and
2. pronounced differently
Both of which indicates the Bible leaves no room for misunderstanding between God and Adam and Eve.

Is there any reason so far to object that the man could have lied to her about what God said?
If you can believe Eve did wrong by misquoting God before eating of the tree as she spoke to the serpent, then you can believe they both were capable of speaking a lie, a wrongdoing even before they committed a known sin. Eating from the tree was the only known sin. So they would have been innocent of all else. But if you can believe she spoke a lie before the first sin, then you can and do believe they were both capable of wrongdoing before the fall, both able to speak lies, even if they were innocent and God did not account it to them. Then you should have no problem with conceiving that Adam could have spoken a lie, based on principle. If the woman could do wrong, so could he. If she could add to God’s Word, so could he, they were both capable of speaking lies and making things up.

And Romans 5 also says, “for until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” This speaks that there was sin in the world, before the law of Moses showed it to be sin. As for Eden, I make this analogy:
The law here was a command, to not eat from the tree. So, in analogy, wrongdoing was possible in Eden, even before there was technically a sin committed because of breaking the command. Some people say that Adam and Eve were perfect, sinless, capable of no wrong-doing in Eden. But then how did sin ever get committed in the first place? Also if this was the case, then why were they made so innocent as to not even be ashamed of their nakedness? They were like young children. It’s not that they could do nothing wrong, but rather they were innocent of any and all wrongs they did, except for the only thing God had commanded. They were not incapable of doing wrong (as we know it), but God did not account any wrongs to them because they were innocent, completely innocent of them. Where does the Bible say they were incapable of wrongdoing before the first actual disobedience of God’s command, the first sin? And if they were incapable of anything wrong, then how did sin occur? And if they were both incapable of speaking a lie out of their mouths, then why is it recorded that Eve did say that God said “not touch it”? The idea that they were incapable of any wrongdoing or speaking any lies is inherently flawed. But the Bible speaks the truth:
When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. James 1:13-15
And so before there is sin, there is an evil desire. And so before there was the first sin, there was the first evil desire. And so there was evil, is evil, before sin occurs. And if there can be an evil desire, then there can be wrongdoing, like a lie, even if it was not disobedience to the 1 command God gave.

Is it possible that a good desire led him to lie? This seems unlikely. Someone might argue that he lied to her because he wanted to protect her from the tree. The problem with this is that Adam saw God Himself tell her she could eat of all the trees. As such, Adam had every reason to think that the tree was safe for the woman to eat from. He would have had to assume that he knew more than God, in order to be trying to protect her. But as he saw God Himself tell her she could eat from all the trees, there is no reason he would have assumed that he knew more than God, or the tree was unsafe for her. And he was faced with not knowing why he would die if he ate from the tree, as God did not tell him why. Which would have made it crystal clear in his mind that God knew more than he did, and would contradict the thought that he knew more than God. He knew that God knew more than him, and so there was no way he would have assumed he knew more than God, like assuming a tree would hurt the woman when he saw God told her she could eat freely of all the trees.

Bottom line, if he had a good desire, wouldn’t he have just told her the truth of what God said? If he had no other agenda, then it seems he would have just told her the truth. But as he lied, it makes the most sense that he had an evil desire. And if James 1 is correct, then Adam must have had an evil desire before he sinned by eating of the tree, which was the evil desire that conceived and gave birth to the sin of eating from the tree. So as we can know Adam did have an evil desire that was present, that existed and led him to eat from the tree, it makes the most sense to assume that he also had an evil desire which led him to lie.

So what was this evil desire the man had which led him to lie?
Truly, he knew that God had given her all the trees to eat from. He was there when God told her this. Which meant he knew that this tree was hers to eat from. It was something she had been given by God, that he had not been given by God. She had a tree given to her by God which he did not have. She had power to eat from it, which he did not have. In a way, she “owned” it, and he did not. So she had a possession that he did not have, and a power that he did not have, and it seems if he could not have this, then he wanted to make sure she would not either. At least effectively, this is what his lie attempted to accomplish. This brings to mind concepts of envy, and of covetousness. Otherwise, why would it bother him if she ate and he did not?

And how might he have felt towards God about all this? Could he have felt insecure in God’s love for him, thinking God loved her more, because God would let her do something he could not do? If so, could he have over-compensated, telling himself that God loved him more, and he was more important than she was? If so then this would be pride. Could pride and envy have led him lie to the woman, portraying his own words to her as the Words of God?
To me this idea is very reminiscent of Isa 14:14, “I will be like the Most High.”

And is this possible because, not knowing right or wrong, good from evil, people still had emotions? Emotions like envy, like anger, or like pride. Without knowing right from wrong, emotions rule. As even now, knowing right from wrong, emotions still rule people’s thinking and can be hard to control. What went through Adam’s mind and heart? It is impossible to know. Nevertheless, while we cannot know what went through his mind and was in his heart, I think that he lied to Eve is clear, and in effect assumed a role over her in falseness that was similar to the role God in truth had over him (and her).

And what should have been this:
He could of just told her the truth, that while God told her she could eat from any tree, that God told him, before she was made, that he could not eat from 1 tree or he would die. And he didn’t know why.
Somehow became this:
He told the woman that despite what God had told her directly, which was that she could eat from all the trees, that there was more that God had said only to him, before she was made. He told her that God had said that they could not eat of this 1 tree, or touch it, or they would die.

But it is very important to note, that at this time neither the man nor the woman knew the difference between Good and Evil. The man was completely innocent of understanding that bearing false witness about what God had or hadn’t said was evil. We know this, as Christians, and as our eyes are open, but their eyes were not yet open, and they were innocent of any wrong they did, like young children. This does not mean they could not do wrong or sin (as we know what is sin), but rather that they were innocent and didn’t know when they sinned (as we know it). They did not know right from wrong, and so most likely just went with their emotions and desires.

So what happened from the woman’s perspective?
And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth. And God said, “See, I have given you(pl) every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you(pl) it shall be for food. Gen 1:28-29
God told the woman was that she could eat from all the trees, and God told her this directly and Himself in person to her. God also said this to the man along with her. This is one of the few interactions she had with God on her first day. Shortly after she was made, God told her He was giving her dominion over the world and all the animals, and all the plants to eat, and also gave her commands to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth.

Then she was told by Adam that God had told Adam, but not her, about a life-or-death command to not eat or touch 1 tree, or she would die. God tells her one thing, and the man then tells her another. The man seems to reveal that God doesn’t bother to warn her about something that will kill her, but the man does warn her. God leaves it to the man to tell her, if he wants to.

What do you think it made her feel when Adam told her that God had not bothered to give her a life or death warning about the tree? How do you think it made her feel when, on top of not eating from the tree which God told her personally she could eat from, she also learned that if she had touched it that it would have killed her? Did she feel that God, her maker, cared if she lived or died?
Could she have felt hurt, like God does not love her as much as the man?
Could she have felt like she could not trust God? Could she have felt like God kept important things from her that were essential for her to know? Could she have felt bad that she was made second, and was not as important to God as the man whom God warned about the deadly tree? Could she have felt God cared if the man died, but not her?
Would she have seen the man as being more trustworthy than God, because he warned her and God did not? Could she have come to feel that God must love her through the man, not directly? Did she see the man as protective of her? Did she have doubts in her mind, wondering if the man might be lying to her, as she was not yet made and was not there? If she believed God in what He told her, and chose to not believe the man, could this have made her feel bad, because then she would have felt hurt like the man did not love her, as he lied to her?

It is hard to know how she felt or what she thought, as the Bible does not specifically record how she felt or what she thought, so there is no way to know for sure.

But what we can know for sure is that she was faced with a contradiction between what God told her, and what the man told her. And based on what she told the serpent, it seems that she chose to believe the man, even though what he told her directly contradicted what God had told her.

Why would she do that?
I would describe her as trusting and even somewhat gullible. By nature, she was designed to be trusting and follow the man. She loved the man, and felt he loved her, and so she trusted him in what he told her, for it to be truth. Also, as Adam was there before her, it was believable that something had happened before she was made. In any case, it is clear that she believed Adam, as this is reflected in what she told the serpent.

It also would make sense that her trust in God was somewhat damaged, as God had told her she could eat safely, and then she found out second-hand that no, in fact one tree was deadly to her, and that God could have personally warned her about this, but did not. This seems to have likely damaged her feeling that God loved her, and her trust in God.

Now, she could have chosen to believe what God told her, and believe the man was lying to her, because what he said seemed to contradict what she saw God tell both her and him. But apparently for some reason, she chose to believe God had not told her something of life-or-death importance, rather than believe the man was lying to her. This is probably because she loved him, so she assumed he was telling the truth, but also because she really wanted to believe that the man loved her. But in believing him, she had to also believe that God had left her in the dark, and passed a loving command of protection through the man, instead of giving it to her directly.
And so the man, in lying to her, would have served to have her believe that the way things were was that God loved her through the man, and protected her through the man, instead of God just loving her and protecting her directly. And he also served to have her believe that God let instructions he gave her take precedence over what God told her directly! And she seems to have rather believed all this than to believe that the man lied to her, which probably would hurt her. So she trusted the man in what he said, and believed him.

And so she did not eat of the tree, until after her conversation with the serpent, and what he told her.
Then the serpent said to the woman,
“You(pl) will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you(pl) eat of it your(pl) eyes will be opened, and you(pl) will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (in the Hebrew all the “you” are plural) Gen 3:4-5

The serpent, who was also made before her, directly contradicted Adam, and  thus claimed that what she heard from Adam was not true. She knew the serpent also was around before she was, just like Adam. Both the serpent and the man were made before her, and were both around when this command from God was given, that she had only heard about second-hand.

Adam said that God said they could not eat it nor touch it or they would die.
The serpent said they would not die. But he did not deny that God had said to not eat from the tree.
And so Eve was faced with a direct contradiction. Both Adam and the serpent had been around before her, and she was hearing 2 different stories. She didn’t know who to believe.

She knew God had told her directly face-to-face was that she and Adam could eat freely from all the fruit trees. What would you have thought? Having 2 contradictory second-hand claims, versus what she had heard from God herself, it seems she defaulted to what God had told her first-hand.
She did choose to eat from the tree, and from this it is possible to gather that she believed the serpent that they would not die if they ate, and stopped believing Adam that they would die if they ate. God had told her she could eat freely, directly, and so the serpent seemed to be a second witness to what God had told her. Both God and the serpent indicated she and the man could eat safely, and so this made what Adam told her seem to be a lie. Because she ate, it seems clear that she no longer believed what Adam had told her, but rather believed the serpent, and also what God had told her.

This was likely because what the serpent said more closely confirmed to her what God had told her personally. God said she and the man could eat freely. Adam said they would die if they ate from this one tree, or touched it. The serpent said they would not die. This probably made her think that Adam had lied about them dying if they ate from the tree, and even that Adam had lied about the whole thing he said that God had said. Although, the serpent did not deny that God had said something.
The serpent also said if they ate they would be like God, knowing good and evil. Which she saw as gaining wisdom. With all this confusion, between what God had told her, and what Adam told her, and what the serpent told her, with direct contradictions, it makes sense she would want some wisdom. She probably felt she was lacking something, as what others said was confusing to her.

With the man telling her one thing, and the serpent telling her another, did she decide to fall back onto what she knew God had said to her, which was that she could eat of all of the trees freely?
I would think the answer to this is yes. She was hearing 2 contradictory stories second-hand, but God had personally told her that she could eat from all the trees. It seems clear that she defaulted back to what God had personally told her, which was that they could eat freely.
And so she touched the fruit,
So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. Gen 3:6
And in that moment when she touched it, she would have known for sure that what Adam had told her was a lie, because when she touched the fruit, she did not die. And so she ate the fruit, and did not die, and now she might have believed again what God had told her originally, that she could eat from all the trees, and she knew God had told Adam the same thing in front of her. Which would have meant that Adam must have been making all of this up, about them ‘not being able to eat or they would die’. She knew God had told her and him at the same time that they could eat freely from all the trees, and she was there when God said this to Adam, after she was made. So she very well might have thought that Adam made all this up, and that what God told her was the entire truth of the matter, which was that they could both eat freely.

So it seems likely that Eve no longer believed Adam, and believed he had lied to her about not eating or touching this one tree. And then perhaps as the serpent seemed to have told the truth, where Adam had lied, and had helped her to stop being fooled, whereas Adam had fooled her, she felt more trust in the serpent than in Adam. The serpent had said they would not die if they ate, and she did not die. And this matched what God had told her and the man, which was they could eat freely. She seemed to totally believe that the fruit was harmless to both of them and would not kill them.
The serpent said it would make them both wise, and she seems to have believed the serpent.
It would make sense that she wanted wisdom because she was finding things confusing, as those older than her told her contradictory stories. But why did she give the fruit to Adam, why did she want him to eat?

Now, because her husband had just lied to her, and been caught in this lie, that she would die if she touched or ate from the tree… and she now knew he had lied to her…
Do you think that she might have at least felt hurt that he had lied to her? Do you think this made her feel unloved? As this was the first time she had ever felt her trust had been betrayed, that someone she loved and who she thought loved her, had lied to her, fooled her… do you think she might have felt hurt? Do you think she might have thought he was kind of foolish? I mean, do you think that she thought that maybe he could use some wisdom, because he wasn’t all that smart? Do you think that she might have thought if he was a little wiser, that he might not hurt her by doing stupid things like lying to her, and getting proven a liar? That he was foolish to lie to her about things even a mere snake could call him on, as the snake and animals had been there too, before her? Do you think she might have assumed he had no malice, but had just been acting stupid or foolish to lie to her?
These are possibilities…. all possibilities… but it is impossible to say for sure. Yet this seems a likely reason she gave him the fruit: she thought the fruit would make him wiser, and she had a reason to think he needed more wisdom, so she gave him the fruit.

She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings. Gen 3:6-7
Apparently she wanted him to have more wisdom, and in this was trying to help him. It’s possible her trust in him, and feeling that he loved her, had been broken by her knowing he had lied to her. Maybe she thought her trust would be repaired, and he would be better, and would change, so she could feel like he loved her again, if he ate and got wisdom. It may be that she did not assume any malice on his part for lying, but rather thought he was just stupid, and thus needed wisdom.
It is impossible to say for sure what she felt or thought, as the Bible does not say. All we know is that she ate, and gave to Adam also.

And while we are here, it is completely in contradiction of the text for anyone to say that the woman wanted to eat of the tree in order to gain power over the man. The serpent told her that in the day both of them ate, both of their eyes would be opened, and both would be like God, knowing good and evil. But it is obvious the woman wasn’t wanting power over the man, but rather thought that the tree would benefit them both. She was trusting and gullible. In fact, her trusting nature that caused her to believe what Adam told her, which seemed to be for her benefit, is the same trusting gullibility that made her more vulnerable to the serpent’s lies, as this information was also couched as being for her benefit. And she believed it was for her benefit, which is why she offered to her husband also, cause she thought it would be good for him as well. So she could not have wanted to gain power over her husband by being wiser than him, as she offered him the thing that she believed would give wisdom to him, so he could have it also.

So the woman ate. And in truth, God never told her she could not eat, and it was completely allowed by God for her to eat the fruit of this tree. It would cause her no change or harm or death. It was not a sin for her to eat.

But then she gave to her husband who was with her.
Note that based on what God actually had commanded, which was that the man not eat, this is where the woman actually does go against God’s commandment, by tempting the man to eat. That she tempted him to eat, was her “becoming in the transgression“. The word transgression here in Greek is singular, as in 1 transgression, that she was “in“; Not that she committed.
1 Tim 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived became in the transgression (singular noun).

This verse does not say she herself transgressed, but that she was IN THE (1) transgression. THE transgression was Adam eating from the tree which he alone had been commanded by God to not eat from. As the woman had been lied to by the man, and deceived by the serpent, she was confused, and did not understand that what would have been right for her to do was to help the man to not eat the fruit, instead of the opposite which was tempting him to eat. Which she might have known, if the man had just told her the truth.

Note that God had not told her that her job was to be a “help meet” and so therefore she should help the man to obey God’s command to him. If this was so, God would have told her of the command to Adam, and that she should help him to not eat.
But does anyone doubt that if the man had told her the truth, that he must not eat from the tree or he would die, that the woman’s natural response would have been to do what she could to help him to not eat from the tree? And had she been given the truth from the man, which would have been consistent with God’s Word she knew He gave to her, it seems doubtful she would have believed the serpent that “they would not die” if “they ate” nor that “their eyes would be opened”.
But in any case, does anyone doubt she would have tried to help the man to not eat, if she had known the truth? Every action she took shows her desire to feel loved and to love others. Especially even in handing the fruit to her husband to eat after she ate, showed she wanted to help him. All of this is confirmation that it is in her nature to be helpful, just as she is, just as God made her. Just as she is naturally inclined to be, she is helpful, just as God made her.

The fact that God never charged her with helping the man to not eat from the tree shows that her being a help meet is NOT her job description, or something she has to try to do for the man. It is not a job she was ordered by God to do, to help him not eat from the tree. But rather, this is just a description, an apt one, of what a woman is by her very nature that God designed her to have. If it was her job to be a helper to the man, if this was her purpose in being created was to be the man’s helper, then God would have instructed her to help the man. God would have told her of the command of Adam to not eat. But God did not, because she was not created with the job to be his helper, servant, or to serve him. But rather, by her nature, she simply was a great help alike-to-him, matching him, that by nature would help him, not put there to serve him, but who just in being who she is would try to help him for his benefit.

And if it is in a woman’s nature as some say, as some make the argument that she “saw and couldn’t help but touch”, this should be understood as the way she was made by God, and was not a flaw in His design of her. There is nothing wrong in that it looked good for food and was pleasant to her eyes. God completely made her safe and acceptable in the world He put her in. If she wanted to touch and eat from the tree, if it looked good, it was ok, God made her in such a way that she would perhaps like to, and God made the world in such a way that this was entirely fine for her to do so. There was nothing wrong with her in this. It was not a flaw in her design. God made her to naturally feel these things, and put her in a world where it was no trouble to her. And if there truly is some difference here “see and can’t help but touch” between a woman and a man, it is not a flaw in the woman, but just a difference, as she was not designed to have to not eat from the tree, and God never told her not to. That’s if anyone would want to say this is a flaw that is in a woman’s nature.

Note that the woman’s eyes are not recorded to have opened until after the man ate the fruit. It is not recorded that he experienced any time delay, as some argue she might have experienced. We do not read here that the woman said “oh my, I’m naked!” before the man did. Nothing indicates any time difference. In fact the verse seems to try to indicate that HE ate THEN both their eyes were opened, as a cause and effect. And then their view of the world suddenly changed. This is in keeping with the spiritual change in Adam’s original spirit, affecting a change in Eve’s spirit which had been multiplied from his. (See Last Chapter.)

As many have commented, it seems that the man witnessed the entire interaction between the serpent and the woman, and was right there as the woman ate the fruit. And said and did nothing. Why? The Bible does not say explicitly, so it is hard to know for sure. But we will get back to this a little more in the next chapter, after a more detailed look at what the serpent said.

And why did Adam choose to eat when she handed him the fruit? All we know is that “Adam was not deceived” and that he believed eating the fruit would kill him, and therefore he did want to die.

Why did he choose to kill himself?
He knew that God, with his command to him alone, had put him in this position where he could not eat, but she could. He also knew he had just been proven a liar by the woman as she touched and ate, and that a snake had showed the man he had no real power to keep the woman believing his lie about her long-term. And somehow, all this together, prompted him to knowingly choose to eat something that he believed would kill him.

Might he have been upset that the woman could eat safely, but God had made him so he would die if he ate, and was upset enough about this seeming unfairness that he did not want to live, if she would now eat freely whenever she wanted to, and he could not?  Maybe he was overcome with envy, and could not stand that she could eat and he could not, so took the fruit not caring if he died? Maybe he felt it was better to die than to have to live with her knowing that he had lied to her? Maybe it was better to die than to have been shown a liar by one of the animals? Maybe he didn’t care what God had told him because he was mad at God that He had told her she could eat, and him that he could not? Might he have wanted to express his anger towards God about this? Maybe he wanted to spite God by killing himself, in pure rebellion? Maybe if she wouldn’t obey what he told her like he was a god, then he wouldn’t obey what God told him? Maybe he thought if he died there in front of the woman that it would prove she should have listened to him?

And is it possible he didn’t care how she would feel, not believing him about any of this dying if they ate stuff, if she were to hand him the fruit and he was to die there in front of her, or how she would feel later, having handed him his death, her not believing there was any danger to him, and leaving her all alone with him dead?

And it makes sense that Adam was aware that she did not believe him, and had been deceived into thinking that the tree was safe for both of them. It makes sense that Adam knew when she handed him the fruit, that she did not believe it would kill him, but that she had been deceived by the serpent.
However, he believed it would kill him, and had not been deceived, as “Adam was not deceived” (1 Tim 2:14).

But to Adam’s surprise, he did not die like he thought he would.