When did Eve "die"?

[Allan]

Scarlett O,

Adam had no authority over Eve until God gave them their punishments. God was their authority until the fall.

I bleieve it is untrue of Adam, True always with God.

Eve couldn't "step out" from under Adam's authority because in the perfect world of Eden, he has none over her.

The order in creation God made in the beginning did not change after the sin of man.
Do you think man and woman in the beginning were created equal in all things?
Do you also think that now that Christ has removed the sin curse that women and men are now equal again before God concerning authority, in the home or church?

Let us look at some things that will help shed some light on this subject.
1) (a)Adam was created in the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of man.
(a1) Corroborating scriptures are as follows:

1Cr 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Cr 11:8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
1Cr 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

(a2)This is not about Ruling\Lording since both Co-ruled but One was in authority, just as husbands and wives are today, both co-rule but the husband had the authority or better, final say. The ultimate one responsible! How do we know this; from what was stated above and also Continue reading -

2) Woman was taken from the rib mans side and created to be a help-meet. Someone NOT a servent but TO come along side and help. Not to do her own thing but was to be under his guidance since she was HELPING HIM complete his God appointed tasks.

3) This one is a weak arguement but when lashed to the others it is a possible arguement to be made: Adam received the commands of God and relayed them to Eve. Since we see no where God speaking directly to Eve CONCERNING His commands like He did with Adam. Not that God would not talk to Eve (that is ridiculous) but we find as stated afore that God recorded His conversation to Adam and it would be appropriete to assume Adam spoke with Eve concerning these things. (There was the only rule after all) It can be inferenced that God held Adam as the head of the relationship in light of preceeding facts.

4) The curse did not give man authority over woman due to her sin. As shown it was already there but her loving duty (longing for thy husband) became a submissive punishment. (but he will Rule over you) - it is of note that man is now in sin as well He will not properly love his wife either and thus (I beleive) the reason the word Rule is used rather than the intended authority originally.

A side note: I think the phrase "her desire will be to her husband,..." can be translated as well to "her desire will be [as] (or same as) her husband but he will rule over you. " However I can't at present document that since I am having trouble locating my Hebrew bible. The Concordance doen't list such small words and I can't find out what the Hebrew is to make the call.
However, the NTL has a footnote that reads: Or "And though you may desire to control your husband." And there are some commentaries as well but this is all for now.

 

[Grasshopper]

Rom 5:12 says death entered by one man.

Spiritual death.

The tree of life was not needed until man fell.

Scriptural proof?

Watch carefully, God said Adam could eat of every tree in the garden except one, tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of Life was there but he was not forbidden to eat of that tree. You see what I mean?

Did Adam eat of it? If Adam was immortal the Tree provided nothing for him.

I believe Eden and heaven are the same spiritual place. Paradice. You recall where the tree of life was when Adam was kicked out of the garden? Notice this verse?

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Unless God moved the tree then this must be the same place.

Was the Garden a literal place? If so, then wouldn't the Tree of Life been destroyed by the Flood?

Would man have been better off not falling and living in the Garden forever or is man better off by spending eternity in Heaven?

 

[Jeep Dragon]

(Gen 3:22) And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever:
(Gen 3:23) Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
(Gen 3:24) So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

It seems to be a popular belief to suppose that man died spiritually after he ate the fruit. If man's death was a direct result of his disobedience to God, no reason would exist to guard the tree of life (or any other tree in the garden for that matter). Since God cannot tolerate sin, He would not allow a sinnful being to exist forever sinning. I think we would all agree on that.
Suppose that there is nothing spirital or myserious that happened when man ate the fruit. Suppose that all that happened is that man sinned and God punnished them by disallowing them to continue to nourish themselves with the tree of life which kept them alive. Reading the obvious context of Scripture God did not want them to partake of the tree of life to live forever, thus drove them out.
If one defines death as "separation" than man died spiritually when he was driven out of the garden. Remember, God was looking for Adam until He "found out" (man's point of view) that he disobeyed.

Possibilities:
Adam and Eve died spiritually when God broke off fellowship with them and drove them out of the Garden.
Adam and Even died physically when they died (they were dying because they couldn't partake of the tree of life.

 

[Grasshopper]

It seems to be a popular belief to suppose that man died spiritually after he ate the fruit. If man's death was a direct result of his disobedience to God, no reason would exist to guard the tree of life (or any other tree in the garden for that matter). Since God cannot tolerate sin, He would not allow a sinnful being to exist forever sinning. I think we would all agree on that.
Suppose that there is nothing spirital or myserious that happened when man ate the fruit. Suppose that all that happened is that man sinned and God punnished them by disallowing them to continue to nourish themselves with the tree of life which kept them alive. Reading the obvious context of Scripture God did not want them to partake of the tree of life to live forever, thus drove them out.
If one defines death as "separation" than man died spiritually when he was driven out of the garden. Remember, God was looking for Adam until He "found out" (man's point of view) that he disobeyed.

Possibilities:
Adam and Eve died spiritually when God broke off fellowship with them and drove them out of the Garden.
Adam and Even died physically when they died (they were dying because they couldn't partake of the tree of life.

Good stuff Jeep.

The death that Adam recieved was immediate:

Gen 3:6 And 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 to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.
Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

The consequence of eating of the tree was immediate.

If they needed the Tree to continue to live physically, then that means they were not created physically immortal, therefore their sin wasn't the root cause of their physical death but the banishment from the Garden was. If so, then when Paul teaches that death came from Adam's sin he must mean (spiritual) death not physical.

Perhaps the Tree of Life gave immortality(exist forever) and when Adam fell, it was an Act of Grace by God not to allow mankind to exist forever in a fallen state. Now immortality can be found only in Christ and if you don't have Christ you don't have immortality.

 

[Jeep Dragon]

If so, then when Paul teaches that death came from Adam's sin he must mean (spiritual) death not physical.

I'm assumming that you mean that Paul meant both physical and spiritual death.

It looks like when Paul talked about both, but not with the same words or in the same sentences, but one right after the other.

(Rom 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

In the Strong's Concordance, the word death simply means "death." I do not plan to try to streatch or spiritualize that term to mean "spiritual" death because context in the next verses covers spiritual death. Im assumming that this is the physical death.

(Rom 5:16) And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.

In the Strong's Concordance, condemnation simply means "condemnation" and justification means "justification" or "righteousness." Here is spiritual death and the gift that counters that.

(Rom 5:21) That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

In the Strong's Concordance, death simply means "death" righteousness means "righteousness" or "justification," eternal means "eternal" and life means "life." This verse mentions both physical and spiritual death, and both physical and spiritual life.

No need for guesswork as to what Paul meant. The words mean what they say. You could assume when you see the word death it is physical death. When you see the word condemnation it means condemnation (or spititual death) it is all covered within these few verses in context.

 

[rlvaughn]

Genesis 3:16 She was punished by having to go through the entire process of childbearing (which includes periods, labor pains, menopause, sometimes barreness, sometimes miscarriages.)

Scarlet, I hestitate to ask this question because it may tend to lead away from the original post; but are saying the current process of childbearing is part of the curse, or childbearing period? It seems Gen. 1:27,28 would indicate that the ability to bear children (or multiply) existed before the fall and the curse included only the negative features associated with it. Thanks.

 

[LeBuick]

Spiritual death.

Then you are saying man was born with physical death. See Jeep Dragon comments.

Scriptural proof?

Prove that the tree of life was needed before the fall of man. Why would you need the tree of life when there is no death?

Did Adam eat of it? If Adam was immortal the Tree provided nothing for him.

Did he eat of it, who knows. My point was he was not forbiden to eat of the tree of life meaning they could and it was not a sin. If they took the time to eat of the one forbidden tree what makes you think they didn't eat of all the ones they could eat from?

Was the Garden a literal place? If so, then wouldn't the Tree of Life been destroyed by the Flood?

This is personal, if the garden was not literal the neither was Adam and Eve. In that view, God gave us a fiction story to explain the fall of man. This would mean we didn't really fall, we just have a story of how it happened.

Would man have been better off not falling and living in the Garden forever or is man better off by spending eternity in Heaven?

Interesting question, without the fall we would be confined to our earthly flesh for eternity. I have to believe being free from this earthly tabernacle and worshiping God before his throne is the best choice in my view.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Scarlet, I hestitate to ask this question because it may tend to lead away from the original post; but are saying the current process of childbearing is part of the curse, or childbearing period? It seems Gen. 1:27,28 would indicate that the ability to bear children (or multiply) existed before the fall and the curse included only the negative features associated with it. Thanks.

Well, yes.

This is just my thinking. I have been known to be wrong.

 

[Allan]

One of my question of thought has been

Why did Adam and Eve NOT eat of the tree of life previously? :BangHead:

I mean there are two trees that were known to them, with monument sized significance in Eden and only one we know God made it abundantly clear they would die if they ate from it.

What is an interesting thing/point to ponderis; If they would have eaten of the Tree of Life BEFORE they sinned, it appears they would continue in an eternal or perpetual state of purity, but since they ate of the Tree of Knowledge they were forbidden to eat of the Tree of Life because they would forever be locked in sin and unredeemable.

or:

It can also be argued that if they ate from the Tree of Life before they sinned and obtained eternallity, and then sinned in their eternal state, there could be no redemption either in such a case (much like the angels).

So I guess a good question is: What is the tree of life? We see it again in Rev. with it bearing 12 different types of fruit every month.

WHAT THINK YE?

Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, [was there] the tree of life, which bare twelve [manner of] fruits, [and] yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree [were] for the healing of the nations.
ACTUALLY since it is slightly off topic maybe it should be on another thread.

 

[LeBuick]

What is an interesting thing/point to ponderis; If they would have eaten of the Tree of Life BEFORE they sinned, it appears they would continue in an eternal or perpetual state of purity, but since they ate of the Tree of Knowledge they were forbidden to eat of the Tree of Life because they would forever be locked in sin and unredeemable..

Interesting questions, I hope you get answers. The above would be like taking the cure before you get the desease.

In that same light, I seem to lean toward the tree of life not being needed until death entered the world. If God had of said if you eat of the knowledge tree then the only cure would be the tree of life, I'm sure they would have had a mixed fruit medley on the table. That's why I believe God gave man a way to fall, then once fallen he gave him a way to be redeemed.

My $00.02 here also, is Jesus the tree of life? If so, how do you place him both in Eden and Rev?

 

[Grasshopper]

I'm assumming that you mean that Paul meant both physical and spiritual death.

No, I lean toward the view he spoke only of the death that separated man from God.

Quote:
(Rom 5:12) Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Where in Genesis does it say that Adam’s sin caused physical death?

Then you are saying man was born with physical death. See Jeep Dragon comments.

I believe man was not created as an immortal being. Only god has immortality and man receives it only through Christ.

1Ti 6:15 For He in His own time will reveal who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
1Ti 6:16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in light which cannot be approached, whom no one of men have seen, nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

Prove that the tree of life was needed before the fall of man. Why would you need the tree of life when there is no death?

Maybe the Tree of Life provided immortality, something perhaps Adam didn’t have.

Did he eat of it, who knows? My point was he was not forbidden to eat of the tree of life meaning they could and it was not a sin. If they took the time to eat of the one forbidden tree what makes you think they didn't eat of all the ones they could eat from?

It seems if they would have eaten of the Tree before the fall, it would have made no difference whether they ate of the Tree after the Fall. If the Tree of Life allowed them to “live forever” then unless it had to be continually eaten it would have made no difference. Therefore a case can be made they never ate of the Tree before the Fall.

This is personal, if the garden was not literal the neither was Adam and Eve. In that view, God gave us a fiction story to explain the fall of man. This would mean we didn't really fall, we just have a story of how it happened.

I believe it was a literal Tree. If you believe it was a literal Tree, then what happened to it? Did God transport it to Heaven? If so when? If not, then wouldn’t it have been destroyed in the Flood?

Interesting question, without the fall we would be confined to our earthly flesh for eternity.

Unless Adam was created to eventually physically die. Was there to be no death in the Garden? Would man and animals continue to reproduce with no limits?

I have to believe being free from this earthly tabernacle and worshiping God before his throne is the best choice in my view.

I agree. So does that mean the fall of Adam was a good thing?

What is an interesting thing/point to ponderis; If they would have eaten of the Tree of Life BEFORE they sinned, it appears they would continue in an eternal or perpetual state of purity,

Would eating of the Tree taken away the possibility of sinning?

but since they ate of the Tree of Knowledge they were forbidden to eat of the Tree of Life because they would forever be locked in sin and unredeemable.

Why would they be unredeemable?

Secondly, maybe they were forbidden from eating of the Tree so that they may not gain immortality and exist forever in a fallen state.

It can also be argued that if they ate from the Tree of Life before they sinned and obtained eternallity, and then sinned in their eternal state, there could be no redemption either in such a case (much like the angels).

Again, why no redemption?

So I guess a good question is: What is the tree of life?

That is the question I have been trying to find an answer to. Depending on what you believe the Tree of Life is, your view of eternal punishment is affected.

In that same light, I seem to lean toward the tree of life not being needed until death entered the world.

Then why take it away when it is needed?