Eve was deceived, Adam was not
May 18th, 2008 by Cheryl Schatz
For a PDF copy of this article click here Eve was Deceived pdf file
This article is a refutation of Matt Slick’s article that he has written in an attempt to refute my teaching on 1 Timothy 2:11-15. **While Matt Slick refuses to debate these teachings in writing on this blog, stating that he is concerned that I would possibly edit his statements (I have promised I would not edit his writings and I certainly do not need to do that to refute him!), my offer extends to another neutral web site that would host the debate where neither one of us would be accused of editing the other’s words. I find it quite odd that someone would use so many excuses to avoid a written debate. Matt has already provided his argument in writing on his web site. Why would I need to edit it? I have no problem in refuting what Matt has already written. I can understand why he would not want to enter into a written debate. He doesn’t do as well in a written form of debate. His style is to verbally attack his opponent and that is much harder to do with a written debate. A written debate would hold him accountable to keep his words respectful since it would be open to be viewed by his peers and the church as a whole. If he continues to refuse a written debate I would suggest that it is time for Matt to stop attacking egalitarians as if they are enemies of the gospel of Christ and go on to something else.**
1 Timothy 2:13, 14 makes it very clear that Adam was first created/Adam was not deceived AND Eve was second created/Eve was deceived. We need to pay attention to what Paul said and to understand how this deception and (no deception) relates to the prohibition of 1 Timothy 2:12. See my related articles Why Adam was not deceived;
Why was the sin of Adam more serious than the sin of Eve? part one
Why was the sin of Adam more serious part two
In Matt Slick’s article he says:
The argument from the egalitarians is that Eve was deceived and Adam was not. Therefore, sin entered the world through him because her sin was not as bad as Adams.
This is a misrepresentation of my view. Adam’s sin and Eve’s actual sin were the same. Both of them ate the fruit and both of them sinned in this way. However their reasons for sinning were not the same and my articles listed above show what scripture says about the reasons.
Matt continues:
First of all, even if it were true that her sin was not as bad as Adams, by what logic is it necessary that sin must enter the world through Adam and not Eve? At best, it’s a theory, an opinion.
It is not a theory nor an opinion when scripture tells us about the heart attitude. While scripture says that Eve was thoroughly deceived (2 Cor. 11:3), the scripture also says that Adam acted treacherously against God and the Hebrew term also means to deal treacherously with, to be traitorous, to act unfaithfully, to betray God (Hosea 6:7).
Adam’s motive for sinning was not the same as Eve’s and God held Adam accountable in a greater way because of his motive. God is the one who reads the hearts and he judged between Adam and Eve differently. The sin nature comes through Adam alone. What I would like to ask Matt is where in scripture does it say that sin came through Adam because Adam was given an authority over all mankind and it was his authority that brought sin into the world? Please show me a verse that speaks about Adam’s authority. The fact is there is nothing of the sort in scripture. The only thing that shows a difference between Adam and Eve and their sin is their motive. The one who sinned willfully and with knowledge also was responsible for bringing willful sin into the world. I noticed that in Matt’s article he completely ignored Hosea 6:7. Why does Matt ignore the verse that gives God’s reason for holding Adam accountable for bringing sin into the world? Adam was the one who has betrayed God. It is because it doesn’t fit in with Matt’s “theory” that man was created as a leader, and has an authority that belongs only to the male.
Next Matt writes:
Second, being deceived doesn’t excuse a person… I searched through the Bible examining all 179 occurrences of deceive, deceived, deceit, deception, etc., and I found none that support the idea that being deceived is less an offense to God or somehow excuses a person from the consequence of that deception.
What Matt has failed to answer is Paul’s argument in 1 Timothy 1:13. Paul shows that one who acts in unbelief can receive mercy from God just as he received mercy from God when his violent actions were the result of his ignorance and unbelief.
1 Timothy 1:13 even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent aggressor. Yet I was shown mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief;
When Eve became completely deceived (the Greek in 2 Cor. 11:3 shows that Eve’s deception was full and complete) she was lead astray (spoiled, ruined, corrupted) and she no longer believed God’s truth. Once the truth was taken from her and she believed the lie, she took the fruit fully believing that it was not wrong to eat the fruit. It was in this full and complete deception that she acted in unbelief.
Just as Eve strayed from the truth through deception, so too are the false teachers in Ephesus teaching error because of their ignorance and unbelief:
1 Timothy 1:6 For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion,
1 Timothy 1:6 Amplified version But certain individuals have missed the mark on this very matter [and] have wandered away into vain arguments and discussions and purposeless talk.
1 Timothy 1:7 wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.
In 1 Timothy 1:6 the NASB says “some men”. The Greek is literally “tis” meaning “some”. It is a generic term that can mean males and females not just men. These false teachers are deceived regarding the truth just as Eve was deceived and they have been taken spoil by their error. Paul said that one who sins in such a way through their ignorance and unbelief can receive God’s mercy in spite of such terrible sin. While I have never claimed that deception excuses a person from the consequences of their actions, what I have claimed is that God is able to break into their lives to give these deceive people mercy that they do not deserve. Paul received such mercy (1 Timothy 1:13) and Eve received such mercy (the “seed” which is the Messiah was promised through her and not through the man).
Once again Matt Slick completely ignores the verses that I have brought up to prove my point from scripture. He is not able to disprove the point of the verses and thus has chosen to ignore my argument rather than to deal with it.
Matt Slick asks:
Therefore, are we to conclude that Eve was somehow excused from her sin or that its severity was lessened because she was deceived?
Eve is not excused from her sin; she received mercy because she did not sin willfully. Eve sinned because she was deceived by the deceiver and not because her attitude was deliberate betrayal and God to give her mercy by promising to bring the Messiah through only the woman. Through her the Messiah would destroy the deceiver. What a merciful God we have!
Matt’s next point is that Esau was deceived out of his blessing and he had to suffer the full consequences:
The point is that the effects wrought through deception are powerful and not lessened in consequence upon the one deceived even though it is from deception.
Matt’s use of Esau as an example of someone being deceived appears to be ill advised. Esau sold his birthright to Jacob and the Bible describes his actions as immoral and godless:
Heb 12:16 that there be no immoral or godless person like Esau, who sold his own birthright for a single meal.
While Jacob may have deceived his Father, he did not deceive Esau. Esau willingly sold his birthright for a single meal because he despised his birthright.
Gen 25:34 Then Jacob gave Esau bread and lentil stew; and he ate and drank, and rose and went on his way. Thus Esau despised his birthright.
Esau did not receive mercy because he sold his birthright willingly and with his eyes wide open to what he was doing.
Gen 25:32 Esau said, “Behold, I am about to die; so of what use then is the birthright to me?”
Heb 12:17 For you know that even afterwards, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought for it with tears.
God rejected Esau and he did not find mercy. He was not deceived. Matt’s application of Esau shows a faulty application and a clear misunderstanding of deception.
Matt ends his article with these words:
Saying that Adam had a greater offense and that is why sin entered the world is nothing more than guesswork. It is an opinion not substantiated by Scripture and not required by logic. Therefore, the argument has no weight.
Matt has not dealt with my argument nor has he dealt with the scriptures that I quoted. So while he ignores my scriptural argument, he can turn a blind eye to that argument and say “that it is an opinion not substantiated by Scripture”. What Matt should have done is deal with the scriptural argument and not ignore the scriptures and then claim victory. Matt’s argument is not convincing neither does it refute my claims.
Also what Matt does not do is give a scriptural proof that Adam was given an authority over humanity and this authority is why sin entered the world. I would encourage Matt to:
1. Show from scripture where it says that sin came into the world because Adam was given special authority.
2. Deal with my scriptural proof or admit that he does not have an answer to the reason why Paul applies the first created/not deceived vs second created/deception of the woman, to the prohibition in 1 Timothy 2:12.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:27 am
I have a suggestion to improve your webside. At the very beginning of the page, make a PDF downloadable file of the teaching. This way a person can just download that and have it in a handy form. CBMW does this for many of its teachings, and we can learn from them in this.
I would think another thing would be to date it, and note revisiions if needed.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:42 am
An improvement 1 Tim 1:6 says simply “tis” meaning “some”. “Some men” may lead some to think that only males were involved in the false teaching, which is not what the Greek implies.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:57 am
Don,
You are very helpful! I have changed the post to make sure that no one would misunderstand the English to think that Paul was talking about “males”.
I also think it is a great idea to also put my posts as pdf files. I will work on that addition as I have time. Excellent ideas for improvement for sure!
May 19th, 2008 at 8:29 am
What translation are you using?
The ALT, ESV, KJV and LITV all have just “some”.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:34 am
I use the NASB
May 19th, 2008 at 9:24 am
It is sad but accurate to accept that the NASB and NIV and many other translations added masculine terms in English where they do not exist in Greek.
May 19th, 2008 at 9:40 am
After they sinned, how did they respond to God?
1. Eve announced that she was deceived
2. Adam blamed Eve and God (That woman YOU gave me)
Could this be why scripture teaches that Eve was deceived (she still sinned) but Adam deliberately sinned?
May 19th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Gen 3:13
And Jehovah God said to the woman, What is
this you have done? And the woman said, The serpent deceived me, and I ate.
May 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
The serpent said something that was not true and the woman believed it.
Gen 3:4 And the serpent said to the woman, Dying you shall not die,
This was something that was not true that the serpent said.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Lin,
The events after Adam and Eve ate the fruit show a couple of things:
1. Eve realizes that she had been deceived. Her eyes were opened to her state of deception and who deceived her.
2. Adam’s blaming of the woman (the fact that he was offered the fruit by a deceived woman is no excuse for Adam to eat. Eve did not deceive Adam) and God (blaming God for giving him the woman) shows that Adam was acting in rebellion against God and he took no responsibility for his sin.
God knew their hearts and knowing their hearts allowed God to give an act of mercy to Eve. God treated Adam differently by kicking Adam out of the garden. God determined that it was the man who had a heart that would rebel against God and eat from the now forbidden tree of life if he were left in the garden.
Also God did not ask Adam what Eve had done and this proves that each person was held responsible for their own sin and that the man was in rebellion while the woman was deceived and she did not act out of a desire to be in rebellion. There is no other reason given in scripture for why it was only Adam who brought sin into the world and hierarchists who want to read an authority over all of humanity given to Adam have no scripture that states this “fact”. They have to read it into the text. I believe it is time that we start reading scripture for what it says and that we should also pay attention to what scripture doesn’t say instead of relying on the presupposition that church tradition has taught us.
May 19th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Another idea to improve the website is to put the forward and backward pointers ALSO after the end of all comments (like exist int he header). As it is now, the reader goes all the way down to read the latest posts, then all the way back up to go backwards or forwards.
May 19th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
If Adam had been given an authority that allowed him and only him to carry sin into the world, first it would be stated clearly. God doesn’t try to confuse us about important things. Then it would seem reasonable, that just like God kicked Adam out of the garden for misusing his privileges, God would have removed that supposed authority.
The fact that both the man and the woman suffered the same results for their sin, death (which ballooned into a myriad of other results), really belies any supposed special privileges for Adam.
May 20th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
tiro,
Very good points!
May 20th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Don,
I figured out how to create PDF documents and I put it on this post and will do so on each post after this. I don’t know when I will get to posting them on each article in the past but sometime when I have a life back again or when I want to just take a break from editing. As far as the forward and back button, I’ll give that to my son to see if he can figure it out.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Don,
Ryan figured out how to add the go back or forth in the posts at the end of the comments too. Thanks for the suggestion and thanks to Ryan for his good work!
Oops, it disappeared after he put 10 comments per page. Oh well. I think the comment pages works well now.
May 20th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Okay, good news. My son figured out a way to have program installed that will email a person a pdf copy of my posts instead of me making my own copy. At the bottom of each post is a box where you can enter your email address and you should get an email back immediately with the pdf copy of the post. Cool eh?
May 21st, 2008 at 6:30 am
I don’t know what Mr. Slick is so afraid of. Why is he so averse to a written debate? Luther and Erasmus duked it out on paper. When you think about it, paper has the advantage of a being better vehicle of fairness, because then both sides are held to a stricter standard of accountability. Why? Because the time element then becomes less of a factor and there is virtually no way one side or the other can rig the results.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:31 am
The print is tiny on the pdf request, at least for me. Any way of making it larger? Thanks.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:24 am
something is wrong. I cannot find any comments beyond the 19th. They are showing up under the comments stream, but not under the actual posts.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:40 am
tiro,
The comments have been changed so that there are 10 comments per page . Underneath the 10 comments are page numbers and you can go through each page or you can hit the “Show All” and that option puts the comments back the way they were with all of them on one page. I don’t think there were more than the 19 comments on this post. My “fences” post had 74 comments and they seem to be all there.
So if anyone has a problem with viewing the comments per page or would rather that I made more comments per page, just let me know and I can adjust that. And of course clicking on “Show All” gets you back to just one page.
May 21st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
OK, found them.
I meant the date, the 19th. 
Nice new tool.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:16 am
Wow, you are getting real uptown with this blog! Good work!
July 10th, 2008 at 2:08 am
Cheryl or Anyone,
I have a quick Question on Genesis 3:7
When there eyes “Both” became open? Why did both there eyes open at the same time? Why didn’t her eyes open first then his?
Once Adam sinned wih his eyes open (wilfully) was it at that moment that Eve (The Woman) realized she was tricked/thoroughly deceived! Please help I need more understanding on this passage!
I want to go alittle deeper in my understanding of this verse. Some people take this verse out of context and try to put Adam in a special role and that’s why both there eyes were open or something to that affect. Anyway please give me the right context. Thanks guys
July 12th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Michael,
Your question is a good on on Genesis 3:7. If the opening of the eyes came from eating the fruit as it appears to be the case, then it would make sense that the opening of their eyes would come when the fruit became digested and into their system. That would likely happen at about the same time for both of them. After all God said that the “day” that they ate of the fruit they would die. He didn’t say that the instant they ate the fruit they would die. If we consider the fruit to be like a poison, the poison then becomes effective once it gets into our system. Again, since she ate and then gave the fruit to her husband, their systems would digest the fruit at about the same time. Once it started to become a part of them, the fruit did it’s work.
I hope that helps
July 14th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Thanks Cheryl,
Now that makes more sense to me. Eating of the fruit happened so fast, first she eats then adam eats. Then the Holy spirit tells us that the eyes of “both” became open. Notice the scripture makes clear it was both! Sin affected them the same, He(Adam) sinned with his eyes wide open and She (Eve) knew at that moment that she was tricked! Sin worked it’s poison in both!
July 14th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Aonther question that comes up is this,
I alway hear alot of pastors say no one wanted to take the blame from eating of the tree but wanted to blame the other! Adam blames God and the Woman.
The Woman (tells the truth) The sepent tricked me and I did eat! How much clearer can she be! I thinkalot of pastors like to read into this and make it appear that the woman was just like adam (Playing the blame game). I don’t see it , when God questions the Woman. She told the truth, she was tricked by the sepent and thats why she ate. Notice she doesn’t blame adam or God but tells the truth. I can see why God would be mercyful on the woman! Your throughts on this Cheryl or anyone.
July 15th, 2008 at 9:34 am
What both said are true, both are trying to lessen their responsibility.
However, the woman is blaming the deceiver for being deceived.
This is a mitigating situation.
The man is blaming a deceived person when he himself was not deceived and them blaming God! This is NOT a mitigating situation and it is totally whacked to blame God. We are to see the man as a rebel, the woman is not a rebel.
July 15th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Thanks Don for your great insight into these deep things for us Christians!
What do you mean by This is a mitigating situation. I’m not understanding this word. Thanks Don
July 16th, 2008 at 6:04 am
From m-w.com
mitigating
1: to cause to become less harsh or hostile : mollify <aggressiveness may be mitigated or…channeled — Ashley Montagu>2 a: to make less severe or painful : alleviate b: extenuate
Mitigating in this case means the woman was deceived AND THEN SHE RECOGNIZED she was deceived. She is acting redemptively. The man is the opposite, he knows better and still did it and INSTEAD of blaming the serpent, he blames the woman and then God.
In other words, in their current situation, there is hope for the woman to do better next time (if there would ever be a next time or similar time), but not so much for the man, as his view of what happened means he is likely stuck.
July 16th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Thanks so much Don I’m going to print this and keep it on file!Thanks again for sharing your Godly Insight Praise Jesus!