\nIt's been popularly circulated that what Eve said in 3:3 "...Neither
\nshall ye touch it..." is the beginning of her calamity. That she abides
\nnot with God's words. That she adds to His words, her own.\n<\/p>\n
\nThe
\nfirst time I encountered this interpretation, I immediately disregard it
\nas a shallow one. Perhaps it was the attitude of the speaker that
\nhelped me discern it such.\n<\/p>\n
\nBecause there are several cases one must go through, though I do not necessary support:\n<\/p>\n
\n1. God did say "touch not" and it is not recorded...hence Eve was merely completing the text.\n<\/p>\n
\n2.
\nGod did not say it and Eve was well aware of it but yet, out of her
\ndivinely called duty to manage the world under God's instructions, she
\nlevied a new command under the image of God, that is perfectly agreeable
\nto God.\n<\/p>\n
\n3. Of course, the shallow take: That God permitted it to
\nbe touched but not eaten. Which, I think is absurd, unless they have a
\ngood reason as to why God would permit it to be touched, which I doubt.\n<\/p>\n
\nAnd \nThough \nTrue, we are not to add to God's \nThat is not \nAnd as for those It's been popularly circulated that what Eve said in 3:3 "...Neither shall ye touch it..." is the beginning of her calamity. That she abides not with God's words. That she adds to His words, her own. The first time I … Continue reading
\nout of my expectation, John Calvin did expound upon this...though not
\ndirect on the verse (3), but in the commentary of verse 1. "When she
\nsays, God has forbidden them to eat or to touch, some suppose the second
\nword to be added for the purpose of charging God with too great
\nseverity, because he prohibited them even from the touch (164) But I
\nrather understand that she hitherto remained in obedience, and expressed
\nher pious disposition by anxiously observing the precept of God;<\/strong>"\n<\/p>\n
\nunfortunately, even the translator of the commentary couldn't bear to
\nagree with Calvin. That he had honestly add his own little footnote
\n(164): (164) “Neither shall ye touch it.” “The woman herself adds this,
\nwhich certainly in the divine law we are not permitted to do.” — Peter
\nMartyr’s Commentary on Genesis. \n<\/p>\n
\nwords, to increase burden, create falsehood, or chaos beyond which God
\nhas plainly intended the meaning. For such is great iniquity, so great
\nthat God would surely add calamity to him who does it. But I fail to see
\nhow this is similar to Eve's speech. As if a mother is wrong to tell
\nher children "God doesn't want you to eat so much candies", unless that
\nis how the Bible talks about "Candies"? Ridiculous.\n<\/p>\n
\nto say that Eve truly believes that by mere touching and not eating it,
\none will die. It was only Eve's view on God's precept, as Calvin puts
\nit. It was her job restrict access to the tree. Because of my stand, I
\nneed not worry about other case, which is the problem of those who, not
\nmine. That should it cause death if licking but not eating? tasting but
\nnot swallowing? licking upon fingers that had "touched" the fruit? etc.
\nAnd the wicked would meet their folly, thinking that they are wise
\nenough to twist God's precept to their own lust.\n<\/p>\n
\nwho rather deny all effects of death or life within the fruit of both
\ntrees, verse 22 is enough to defeat their strongest argument. By saying
\nthis, I am not saying that God has no direct power over life and death
\nbut that through the creation of the two trees, God set His ordinances
\nby which He displays His power. Because the trees are real, not
\nsymbolic. And it is men's responsibility to discern the source of the
\npowers of those trees.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"