Like Button

Monday, August 12, 2024

The Original Sin

A longstanding doctrine of the Christian faith is the doctrine of Original Sin. The doctrine holds that humans are born with a sin nature because of Adam's sin. It's biblical, too (Psa 51:5; Eph 2:1-3; Pro 22:15; Gen 8:21; Psa 14:2-3; Jer 17:9; Rom 5:12; etc.). That is, we sin because we are sinners; it's in our nature. But that phrase there ... "because of Adam's sin" ... if Original Sin is because of Adam's sin, what is the Original Sin -- the sin of Adam?

You might think it was eating the fruit of the tree, and perhaps you'd be partly right, but it was Eve that ate, then Adam. Yet, in Paul's first epistle to Timothy, Paul says that "it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression" (1 Tim 2:14). So Eve's sin was through deception, but not Adam's, and because of that Adam is responsible for Original Sin and not Eve. Solomon wrote, "Behold, I have found only this, that God made men upright, but they have sought out many devices" (Ecc 7:29). In creation, Adam (and Eve) were made "good." That is, they were made, in Solomon's words, "upright." They were made without sin -- without a sin nature. So Eve was deceived, but Adam "sought out many devices," as it were. Apparently, Adam wasn't doing his job. When the serpent asked what God said, her answer wasn't accurate. "God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" (Gen 3:3). He said no such thing. Apparently Adam failed to teach her correctly. And we know that Adam was there for the conversation with the serpent because, "When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate" (Gen 3:6). So, yes, Adam's sin was that he ate what God commanded him not to, but beyond that he failed to teach his helpmeet the truth about what God said and failed to intervene when she was deceived and he was not.

For punishment to be just, it has to fit the crime. I would say that the reason that part of the curse included, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life" (Gen 3:17) -- because his failure was listening to his wife rather than God -- and "To the woman He said, 'I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'" (Gen 3:16) Adam's sin is perhaps the most common sin among Christian husbands today. We fail to teach our wives (Eph 5:26-27). We fail to lead (1 Cor 11:3). Like Adam, we abdicate our God-given responsibility to live with our wives in an understanding way and honor her as a fellow heir of the grace of life (1 Peter 3:7). And, in return, she grasps the reins and runs with it and we can't figure out where we're going or why. Just deserts, they call it. And it's our own fault for not being the teachers and leaders and responsible heads of household that God ordained us to be. Like Adam.

3 comments:

David said...

Might that be because the curse put a tension between husband and wife? Certainly men have abdicated our role, but how can we not when the women refuse to not strive for the authority? It takes both fighting against the curse, and if one refuses, things don't work well, even if the other wants to.

Lorna said...

The thought I had while reading your description of Adam’s failure to teach and to lead Eve was twofold: (1) As you said, Adam stood by (presumably) and watched his wife be led astray, i.e. failing to protect her from harm and deception; and (2) Eve misused her influence upon Adam in bringing him along in her deception and disobedience. I think that this has been a very real danger right to the present time--especially in these days of great apostasy--particularly in a relationship where the wife is temperamentally strong and proactive and the husband is more docile and accommodating. It is also an example to me where God has created husbands and wives to complement each other--in both their strengths and their weaknesses--with a bit of “checks and balances.”

I will be sure to share this post with my super-easy-going hubby, who very much holds a “happy wife, happy life” outlook. (I’m not sure whether that’s from his uber-phlegmatic temperament or because he believes those “reins” you mention are in good hands.)

P.S. I am glad to know the proper spelling and origin of the term “just deserts,” although I do prefer “just desserts” (and make them chocolate, please :).

Anonymous said...

I have found in my own marriage that when I lead my family, the first to follow me is my wife. Even if she protests at the beginning. I simply do what’s right and true with as few words as possible. Examples and results are what our wife will admire and respect. Words and arguments do little to convince her.