The Reality of Free Will
- By Clare73
- Christian Scriptures
- 173 Replies
Adam was not the one deceived, it was the woman who was deceived (1 Tim 2:14).I'd say conscience reflects beliefs. What about addressing my question?
They learn it. Objective knowledge is dictated by reality. <-facts.
What we think matters, because it matters what we believe, because we reason upon what we believe to be true, because if we reason upon something false as true our reasoning ends in a contradiction.
"Paul made a contrast between one person being deceived, and the other not". <- Look at the context, Paul is making a contrast between the man and the woman with the intention of making the case for why the man should have the greater authority.
"That points out that one person - Adam - made a choice to do what was wrong, without being misled". <-This is inaccurate because (1) it's out of context. (2) Paul did not say Adam made a deliberate choice to do wrong.
Only one of these statements is logical:
(1) The person who distrusts the almighty should have authority.
(2) The person who trusts the almighty should have authority.
What the Text Actually Says
- Greek syntax: “Adam was not deceived, but the woman, having been deceived, fell into transgression.”
- The verb ἠπατήθη (“was deceived”) is simply negated for Adam. It does NOT ADD “therefore Adam sinned deliberately.”
- Paul’s statement is descriptive of Genesis: the serpent spoke with Eve, not Adam. Eve was deceived; Adam was not.
- Nowhere in scripture does it explicitly say “Adam sinned deliberately.” That is an interpretive inference, not a textual statement.
- If Paul meant Adam’s sin was deliberate, then the logic collapses:
- The one who deliberately distrusted God would be more culpable, not less.
- Authority cannot be grounded in deliberate rebellion. Even a child could see that the one who knowingly disobeys God is less fit for authority than the one misled.
It is wrong to presume Adam and Eve knew what a lie is; It's logical to assume that without any knowledge of good and evil they only knew how to trust.
With the stipulation that when I say, "TEND to take it out of context", I mean some theologians tend to interpret that Paul is inferring that Adam was not misled and subsequently disobeyed of his own initiative; and that interpretation ends in the contradiction of reasoning.<- This would be in contrast to believing Paul is inferring that the man shouldn't be taught by the woman because the man was persuaded by the woman and was misled by the woman. <-- This reasoning does not end in a contradiction of reasoning. To be clear the contradiction is that the one who knowingly distrusts God should be in authority.
Taken out of context: Ellicott: "The argument here is a singular one—Adam and Eve both sinned, but Adam was not deceived. He sinned, quite aware all the while of the magnitude of the sin he was voluntarily committing. Eve, on the other hand, was completely, thoroughly deceived". Ellicott
Here is one taken in context: Chrysostom: "For the woman taught the man once, and made him guilty of disobedience, and wrought our ruin. Therefore because she made a bad use of her power over the man, or rather her equality with him, God made her subject to her husband. "Thy desire shall be to thy husband?" (Genesis 3:16.) This had not been said to her before".
"But how was Adam not deceived? If he was not deceived, he did not then transgress? Attend carefully. The woman said, "The serpent beguiled me." But the man did not say, The woman deceived me, but, "she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Now it is not the same thing to be deceived by a fellow-creature, one of the same kind, as by an inferior and subordinate animal. This is truly to be deceived. Compared therefore with the woman, he is spoken of as "not deceived." For she was beguiled by an inferior and subject, he by an equal. Again, it is not said of the man, that he "saw the tree was good for food," but of the woman, and that she "did eat, and gave it to her husband": so that he transgressed, not captivated by appetite, but merely from the persuasion of his wife. The woman taught once, and ruined all. On this account therefore he saith, let her not teach. But what is it to other women, that she suffered this?" Chrysostom
We can use the term deceived, or beguiled, or deluded.
(1) The serpent questions God’s command -> “Did God really say…?”
(2) The serpent introduced a doubt to the innocent->The serpent casts suspicion on God’s word, making Eve question whether she understood correctly.
(3) The serpent gives a false assurance -> The serpent assures her she will not die, directly contradicting God’s warning.
(4) The serpent tempts her with gain -> The serpent says she will gain wisdom and godlike knowledge if she eats.
Eve had probably never felt doubt before. I think the serpent introduced doubt into her experience for the first time, and that’s how she was deceived.
Probably because it's probable. Remarkable because one would think it would be corroborated somewhere else in scripture if Adam had not been misled by his wife.
Adam chose to sin with her.
I've already stated that it's speculation. The fact that one interpretation ends in a contradiction of reasoning however is not speculative. And that happens to be the speculation in the OP.
Are you ignoring other possibilities that conflict with your interpretation?
“In scripture, we never find ‘free will’ as a noun -> a thing humans possess. What we find are adverbs like ‘willingly’ or ‘voluntarily,’ describing how an action is done. To import the secular noun ‘free will’ into the Bible is to add a concept that isn’t there.”
Upvote
0
