The OT and NT have different topics.

[Fenris]

Hey Fenris,

I appreciate the thought provoking topic!

Awesome!

When I read Psalms the book and David seem very occupied with thoughts of salvation, deliverance, being saved...etc

First of all, king David lives hundreds of years after the bible was written. The religion is already established according to the laws of the first 5 books of the bible. And it's about sanctification. "Be holy".

 Second of all, he lead a very eventful life. He battled the mighty Goliath. He was on the run from king Saul. He fought in wars. When he speaks of "salvation" he very clearly means in the physical sense: God saving his skin, not letting him fall into his enemies hands in battle. For example, 2 Samuel 24:14 David answered Gad, “I have great anxiety. Please, let us fall into the LORD's hands because His mercies are great, but don't let me fall into human hands.” Notice that king Saul commits suicide rather than fall to his enemies tender mercies.

Others, like Jacob, Moses, Hannah, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Habakkuk...in the OT spoke of these things as well.

You're really going to have to provide verses instead of throwing names out.

The context of those is deliverance, salvation from an enemy or adversary. Clearly they could not deliver themselves in their own energy. They sought out God because that was a work that could only come from God.

This is not so. They did what they had to do and only then prayed for divine assistance.

That's no different in NT. The NT identifies sin as an enemy.

That's because the NT is about "salvation". But it's a different topic than the OT.

It's an adversary that I can't deliver myself from. It wars within me.

Different topic, but-

Genesis 4:7 sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it

Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

[Kingfisher]

First of all, king David lives hundreds of years after the bible was written. The religion is already established according to the laws of the first 5 books of the bible. And it's about sanctification. "Be holy".

In that case David writings in Psalms would be falling in line with the same accusation you made of the NT compared to the OT.

Second of all, he lead a very eventful life. He battled the mighty Goliath. He was on the run from king Saul. He fought in wars. When he speaks of "salvation" he very clearly means in the physical sense: God saving his skin, not letting him fall into his enemies hands in battle. For example, 2 Samuel 24:14 David answered Gad, “I have great anxiety. Please, let us fall into the LORD's hands because His mercies are great, but don't let me fall into human hands.” Notice that king Saul commits suicide rather than fall to his enemies tender mercies.

Yep. We agree on that context.

Others, like Jacob, Moses, Hannah, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Habakkuk...in the OT spoke of these things as well.

You're really going to have to provide verses instead of throwing names out.

Challenge accepted. How many do you need? One for each?

The context of those is deliverance, salvation from an enemy or adversary. Clearly they could not deliver themselves in their own energy. They sought out God because that was a work that could only come from God.

This is not so. They did what they had to do and only then prayed for divine assistance.

Yes, they did everything they could and it wasn’t enough for deliverance.

That's no different in NT. The NT identifies sin as an enemy.

That's because the NT is about "salvation". But it's a different topic than the OT.

The NT is about sanctification too

It's an adversary that I can't deliver myself from. It wars within me.

Different topic, but-

Genesis 4:7 sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it

...And I ask for help as David did in Psalm 119:133
And just like David asked God to cleanse him of his sin in Psalm 51:1-2

Deuteronomy 30:11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach.

Aah! That’s interesting. I’m not going to quickly try to explain that away. Not going to ignore it either as it does make your point. Thanks for giving me something to meditate on.

But my initial thoughts are who is Isaiah 53 speaking of and how does that fit in your understanding of Deuteronomy 30:11?

[Fenris]

In that case David writings in Psalms would be falling in line with the same accusation you made of the NT compared to the OT.

I have not commented on what king David wrote. All I have said is that it was hundreds of years later. That means that for hundreds of years, the only texts that Jews had was he 5 books of Moses, whose topic is... sanctification.

Yep. We agree on that context.

Excellent.

Challenge accepted. How many do you need? One for each?

Show, don't tell.

Yes, they did everything they could and it wasn’t enough for deliverance.

That's... not what the bible says. They did what they could and they prayed to God. No place does the bible say that their actions "weren't enough".

The NT is about sanctification too

It specifically isn't. Christian theology is all about how humans can't do anything right and have to rely on Jesus's sacrifice. The in the OT God says "Be holy" and then tells us how.

And just like David asked God to cleanse him of his sin in Psalm 51:1-2

There's a  difference between asking God to cleanse sin and saying that we're incapable of not sinning. God tells Cain, the world's first murderer, that he's capable of overcoming sin.

Aah! That’s interesting.

Yes. Yes it is.

But my initial thoughts are who is Isaiah 53 speaking of and how does that fit in your understanding of Deuteronomy 30:11?

Isaiah was written 600 years or more after Deuteronomy. It obviously could be understood without juxtaposing it by the people who read it in those times.

[Sojourner]

It depends on one's outlook. I see Adam and Eve's actions giving our life meaning. We can make choices. We can do the right thing, "be holy", in spite of temptation.

I see the rebellion in the garden and their consequences in a different light, and far more momentous. I believe Adam and Eve's actions disrupted the fellowship and communion mankind originally had with the Creator. Yet I see in the Genesis account not only a fall from grace, but a foreshadowing of God's ultimate plan of redemption through a coming Savior -- playing out first in the OT, and coming to fruition in the NT. I also see the reason the Apostle John referred to Jesus as the Word of God (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:7; Revelation 19:3).

Eve ultimately ate of the forbidden fruit because she believed the serpent rather than God regarding the consequences. It was a lack of faith in God's Word that led to her disobedience, and that disobedience led to death. We see a reversal of this detrimental process in the redemptive work of Jesus. Faith in Jesus as God's Word robed in humanity effectively reverses the damage done in the garden. Just as a lack of faith led to disobedience and disobedience to death, faith in God's Word manifest in the flesh of the Savior leads to obedience, and that obedience leads to eternal life. While you don't see Jesus as the embodiment of God's Word, you would not obey God if you did not first believe in Him, so faith in God's word at least, is foundational to both our belief systems.

We also see foreshadowed shortly after the expulsion from the garden the atoning blood of Jesus revealed in the NT. The fig leaf aprons Adam and Eve made for themselves were inadequate to cover the nakedness that symbolized their sin. The animal skin garments God replaced them with required the killing of innocent creatures and shedding of their blood. In a similar way, God later rejected Cain's sacrifice because it was the works of his own hands, produced from the cursed ground, rather than a sacrifice that shed blood. This sacrificial offering instituted shortly after the exile from Eden was familiar to Noah since we see him making his offering shortly after leaving the ark (Gen 8:20).

Blood had to be applied to the lentils and doorposts in Goshen, on the vessels used in worship, the mercy seat in the holy of holies, and even on the priests themselves. What purpose does the blood serve, if not sanctification? As the writer of Hebrews states, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

There is yet another NT foreshadowing in Genesis which is very profound. The Genesis account tells us Eve was taken out of Adam. We read that God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man and removed a rib from which his bride was formed. Thousands of years later, Jesus likewise went into the deep sleep of death, and from the blood and water that came out of a spear wound in His side, His bride, the church was formed. For both the atoning blood of Jesus and waters of baptism are foundational to the faith (Romans 5:9; Ephesians 1:7-8; 1 Peter 3:21; 1 John 5:6-8; Acts 22:16). Moreover, while Jesus and Adam were motivated by different circumstances, they both willingly allowed themselves to be separated from God for the sake of their beloved.

Fenris, I know as an orthodox Jew you disagree with the premise I present, but to call such dove-tailing parallels happenstance is really pushing the envelope on coincidence. Events separated by thousands of years fit together like a hand and a glove. The closing chapters of the book of Revelation even describe a 360 degree return to conditions similar to the garden of Eden -- complete with the tree of life.

[ProDeo]

The garden

The garden is in three chapters of the bible. My bible has 929 chapters. That means the garden is around 3/10 of 1% of the bible. The garden happened, and the story goes on. The topic of my bible is sanctification, not the garden.

That's like studying cosmology ignoring the big bang 

Then one moment of disobedience and everything changed, kicked out of the heavenly place, away from the presence of the Lord on a not so nice Earth, full of dangers, death as the inevitable end result.

It depends on one's outlook. I see Adam and Eve's actions giving our life meaning. We can make choices. We can do the right thing, "be holy", in spite of temptation.

Not sure why you insist A&E life actions had no meaning and of course they had free will to make choices.

Consider also there was no mercy for A&E, God could have forgiven them, He did not.

No mercy? God could have killed them on the spot. That was the proscribed punishment. Yet He did not. That shows plenty of mercy.

Or relented like He did to the people of Nineveh giving A&E a second chance. Instead (because of that one sin) God knowingly allowed a world of suffering while we know God is love. Why? How can you not take sin as the root of the moment things went wrong.

This week's reading from the prophets features the interesting verse of Ezekiel 20:17 "...they kept rejecting My ordinances, refusing to walk in My statutes, and profaning My Sabbaths; for their hearts continually went after their idols. Yet I looked on them with pity and did not destroy them..."

Without His mercy we are nothing.
 

[IMINXTC]

If one cannot see the NT as the inspired, progressive outfolding of the OT, then one can neither see hell in it's  NT terms nor the desperate need for salvation which applies to all men, as no man remained sanctified under the Law. The Law did not fail, per se, but men do and did.

[Fenris]

I see the rebellion in the garden and their consequences in a different light, and far more momentous.

It's a mere three chapters, less than a half of one percent of the bible, and it ever features again. Meanwhile the rest of the five books of Moses deals quite exhaustively with God's covenant and the conditions in it, especially some 613 commands that are expected to be followed. The word "salvation" doesn't appear, but the phrase "be holy" does. I'm just telling you what's there.

I believe Adam and Eve's actions disrupted the fellowship and communion mankind originally had with the Creator. Yet I see in the Genesis account not only a fall from grace, but a foreshadowing of God's ultimate plan of redemption through a coming Savior -- playing out first in the OT, and coming to fruition in the NT. I also see the reason the Apostle John referred to Jesus as the Word of God (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 5:7; Revelation 19:3).

And to prove this, you have to quote...the NT. Because my bible doesn't say any of the things that you're talking of.

Eve ultimately ate of the forbidden fruit because she believed the serpent rather than God regarding the consequences. It was a lack of faith in God's Word that led to her disobedience, and that disobedience led to death.

The word "faith" also doesn't feature. It was Eve's actions that got her in trouble. What she did. Not what she believed, because the bible actually doesn't tell us that.

We also see foreshadowed shortly after the expulsion from the garden the atoning blood of Jesus revealed in the NT. The fig leaf aprons Adam and Eve made for themselves were inadequate to cover the nakedness that symbolized their sin.

"Symbolized". "Foreshadowed". But not in the text.

Blood had to be applied to the lentils and doorposts in Goshen, on the vessels used in worship, the mercy seat in the holy of holies, and even on the priests themselves. What purpose does the blood serve, if not sanctification?

Yes. That's what I said. The OT is about sanctification. The NT is about salvation. Different topics.

As the writer of Hebrews states, "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

Weirdly enough, that phrase is not in my bible.

There is yet another NT foreshadowing in Genesis which is very profound.

Again. "Symbolized". "Foreshadowed". But not in the text.

Try reading Leviticus. It's full of things that God actually expects us to do. Because they sanctify us. No symbolism or foreshadowing needed.

Fenris, I know as an orthodox Jew you disagree with the premise I present, but to call such dove-tailing parallels happenstance is really pushing the envelope on coincidence. Events separated by thousands of years fit together like a hand and a glove. The closing chapters of the book of Revelation even describe a 360 degree return to conditions similar to the garden of Eden -- complete with the tree of life.

This gave me a chuckle. Honestly, someone writes about getting back to Eden, ignoring the entire rest of the bible, and that makes it correct and believable?

[Fenris]

If one cannot see the NT as the inspired, progressive outfolding of the OT, then one can neither see hell in it's  NT terms nor the desperate need for salvation which applies to all men, as no man remained sanctified under the Law.

The NT creates a "need for salvation", and then fills it. It is circular logic. I don't need "salvation", because my bible doesn't speak of it. It tells me that God wants us to sanctify ourselves though His commands. So this I must do. And that's it.

[Fenris]

That's like studying cosmology ignoring the big bang 

Bad analogy. The big bang happened, and that's it. All the laws of physics were already in place.

On the other hand, God communicated with man after the garden. In fact, there are far far more communications between man and God after the garden than in the garden. And a lot of them deal with God's expectations for our behavior. To sanctify ourselves. You might not like it, but you can't pretend that it didn't happen.

Not sure why you insist A&E life actions had no meaning and of course they had free will to make choices.

They could be tempted from without, sure. But after eating from the tree of knowledge, they could also be tempted from within.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."


 

Instead (because of that one sin) God knowingly allowed a world of suffering while we know God is love. Why?

Evil is the consequence of free will. But so is good. In fact, struggling to overcomes one's baser instincts and doing the right thing gives that meaning.

Without His mercy we are nothing.

Yes, that's true. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't obey God and sanctify ourselves, as He asks.

[Kingfisher]

I have not commented on what king David wrote. All I have said is that it was hundreds of years later. That means that for hundreds of years, the only texts that Jews had was he 5 books of Moses, whose topic is... sanctification.

Your opening post stated the OT. There’s no need to justify the discussion context as based on the first 5. There are Books after the first 5 that do discuss salvation. In Psalms and Isaiah it’s mentioned several times. Psalms often.

Show, don't tell.

As you wish...
Jacob: Genesis 49:18
Moses: Exodus 14:13-14; 15:2
Hannah: 1 Sam 2:1
Job: Job 13:16
Isaiah: Isaiah 52:7
Jeremiah: Lamentations 3:25-26
Jonah: Jonah 2:9
Habakkuk: Habakkuk 3:17-18

That's... not what the bible says. They did what they could and they prayed to God. No place does the bible say that their actions "weren't enough"

To be clear I’m saying. David needed God’s help of deliverance. He knew he couldn’t deliver himself. In Psalm 144:2 he pleads in his neediness. As Psalm 3:8 states, Salvation belongs to the Lord.

It specifically isn't. Christian theology is all about how humans can't do anything right and have to rely on Jesus's sacrifice. The in the OT God says "Be holy" and then tells us how.

It’s not correct to say that sanctification specifically isn’t in the NT. The Greek hagios is defined as: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify. Sanctification is there. (28) times specifically.

There's a  difference between asking God to cleanse sin and saying that we're incapable of not sinning. God tells Cain, the world's first murderer, that he's capable of overcoming sin.

Do you know someone that capably has never sinned? This is why the NT discusses salvation so much.

Isaiah was written 600 years or more after Deuteronomy. It obviously could be understood without juxtaposing it by the people who read it in those times.

That's a flimsy explanation. In this case what is good for the Goose is still good for the gander.

[Fenris]

Your opening post stated the OT. There’s no need to justify the discussion context as based on the first 5.

I can justify the context however I like. You're quoting single verses directly below this and ignoring the entire surrounding chapter. Where's your context?

Jacob: Genesis 49:18

"For Your salvation, I hope, O Lord!"

There is no context here whatsoever. 

This is when Jacob is blessing his sons before his death. The verse prior says "Dan will be a serpent on the road, a viper on the path, which bites the horse's heels, so its rider falls backwards" and the verse following says "As for Gad, a troop will troop forth from him, and it will troop back in its tracks" (Which is a pun in Hebrew but not English. What you miss by not reading it in the original Klingon).  The "salvation" referenced, in context, seems to mean God saving these tribes in battle. Nothing more, and certainly not "salvation" in the NT sense. 

Moses: Exodus 14:13-14

"Moses said to the people, Don't be afraid! Stand firm and see the Lord's salvation that He will wreak for you today"

Again, context.

The Israelites are afraid of the approaching Egyptian chariots. Moses tells them not to worry, God will save them. From the Egyptians. And their chariots.

Isaiah: Isaiah 52:7

"How beautiful are the feet of the herald on the mountains, announcing peace, heralding good tidings, announcing salvation, saying to Zion, "Your God has manifested His kingdom."


Context.

The chapter begins  "Awaken, awaken, put on your strength, O Zion; put on the garments of your beauty, Jerusalem the Holy City, for no longer shall the uncircumcised or the unclean continue to enter you." This is talking about the Jews being redeemed from exile. No mystery, this is the plain text.

And so on....

Now I'm going to quote some verses about sanctification. Since nobody seems interested in the topic.

Lev 16

The Lord said to Moses,  “Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.

 “‘Each of you must respect your mother and father, and you must observe my Sabbaths. I am the Lord your God.

 “‘Do not turn to idols or make metal gods for yourselves. I am the Lord your God.

 “‘When you sacrifice a fellowship offering to the Lord, sacrifice it in such a way that it will be accepted on your behalf.  It shall be eaten on the day you sacrifice it or on the next day; anything left over until the third day must be burned up.  If any of it is eaten on the third day, it is impure and will not be accepted.  Whoever eats it will be held responsible because they have desecrated what is holy to the Lord; they must be cut off from their people.

 “‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest.  Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the Lord your God.

 “‘Do not steal.

“‘Do not lie.

“‘Do not deceive one another.

 “‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.

 “‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor.

“‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight.

 “‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the Lord.

 “‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.

 “‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people.

“‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the Lord.

 “‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt.

 “‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.

 “‘Keep my decrees.

“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

 “‘If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment.[ Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed.  The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the tent of meeting for a guilt offering to the Lord.  With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.

 “‘When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten.  In the fourth year all its fruit will be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord.  But in the fifth year you may eat its fruit. In this way your harvest will be increased. I am the Lord your God.

 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it.

“‘Do not practice divination or seek omens.

 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

 “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.

 “‘Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness.

 “‘Observe my Sabbaths and have reverence for my sanctuary. I am the Lord.

 “‘Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.

 “‘Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord.

 “‘When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them.  The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.

 “‘Do not use dishonest standards when measuring length, weight or quantity.  Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah and an honest hin. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt.

 “‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the Lord.’”

and at the end of the following chapter,

You are to be holy to me because I, the Lord, am holy, and I have set you apart from the nations to be my own.

With the exception of verses 5 thru 8, and the matter of the female slave, this all applies and can be carried out nowadays. And so we do. Because God commands us to be holy, the topic, and purpose of, the bible.

To be clear I’m saying. David needed God’s help of deliverance. He knew he couldn’t deliver himself.

He knew the outcome of his actions were in God's hands and not his own. No place does the bible say that "he couldn't deliver himself".

It’s not correct to say that sanctification specifically isn’t in the NT. The Greek hagios is defined as: to make holy, consecrate, sanctify. Sanctification is there. (28) times specifically.

Again, just because it uses a word doesn't make it a topic of significance. I've been here a long, long time. Standard Christian theology as has been taught to me is that all our deeds are meaningless and only faith saves. In other words, the topic of the NT is "salvation". By way of contrast, the OT says that our actions are extremely consequential, and God expects us to abide by His covenant with us by sanctifying ourselves. I cited an entire chapter, above.

Do you know someone that capably has never sinned? This is why the NT discusses salvation so much.

Of course everyone sins. God created us imperfectly. That doesn't mean that we need "salvation" in the Christian sense. God doesn't expect perfection from us. He expects us to reach our own individual potential, which is different for each person.

Really the whole idea that man needs "salvation" in the Christian sense is a Christian invention. Galatians 2:21 for example- " if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing".

That's a flimsy explanation. In this case what is good for the Goose is still good for the gander.

In what way is it "flimsy"? The Jews at Sinai were only just receiving the bible. They didn't have the works of the prophets. How could they know and be guided by words they never heard and concepts they did not know?

[Sojourner]

It's a mere three chapters, less than a half of one percent of the bible, and it ever features again. Meanwhile the rest of the five books of Moses deals quite exhaustively with God's covenant and the conditions in it, especially some 613 commands that are expected to be followed. The word "salvation" doesn't appear, but the phrase "be holy" does. I'm just telling you what's there.

"Speak up and present your case—yes, let them take counsel together. Who foretold this long ago? Who announced it from ancient times? Was it not I, the LORD? There is no other God but Me, a righteous God and Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other." (Isaiah 45:21-22)

Maybe I'm missing something, but if God calls Himself a Savior, and exhorts all to turn to Him to be saved, I see the concept of salvation. You might maintain the Hebrew there means to be "rescued" or "delivered", rather than "saved", but it all boils down to the same concept of redemption and protection.

The word "faith" also doesn't feature. It was Eve's actions that got her in trouble. What she did. Not what she believed, because the bible actually doesn't tell us that.

Come on, fenris. If Eve had believed God's warning instead of the serpent's lies, she would not have eaten the fruit. But then again you probably see the whole convo with the serpent as allegory, anyway, right?

Yes. That's what I said. The OT is about sanctification. The NT is about salvation. Different topics.

"The righteous shall live by faith." (Habakkuk 2:4) Also, Abraham was credited with righteousness because of his faith long before the giving of the law. And Jews would not obey the law unless they believed in God to begin with. Don't act like faith is a foreign concept in the torah. 

[Athanasius]

:thinking: It seems to me that you're talking about the same thing with respect to Eve, except that Sojourner is trying to get at why Eve acted as she did. Probably 'trust' would be a better word, and this lack of trust is what informed the act, and it's the act that got her in trouble. Of course, the text only tells us that Eve ate the fruit because she saw that it was good for food, aesthetically pleasing, and desirable for gaining wisdom. Whatever determinations we make of Eve's motivations are purely implied by the text.

I wonder: if Adam and Eve had acted differently, would their relationship with God and each other have survived? Was the sin the act of eating the fruit, or their responses after eating the fruit?

[Sojourner]

:thinking: It seems to me that you're talking about the same thing with respect to Eve, except that Sojourner is trying to get at why Eve acted as she did. Probably 'trust' would be a better word, and this lack of trust is what informed the act, and it's the act that got her in trouble. Of course, the text only tells us that Eve ate the fruit because she saw that it was good for food, aesthetically pleasing, and desirable for gaining wisdom. Whatever determinations we make of Eve's motivations are purely implied by the text.

I wonder: if Adam and Eve had acted differently, would their relationship with God and each other have survived? Was the sin the act of eating the fruit, or their responses after eating the fruit?

Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it. I believe the serpent convinced Eve that God was not being truthful, but was attempting to deprive her of benefits the fruit would impart. The bottom line is, satan, through the serpent, enticed Eve with the same delusion that caused his own downfall -- believing that one can be "like God."

Edit: Satan's equivocation through the serpent is what beguiled Eve. He did what he is a master of: blending in just enough truth to make a lie believable. Yes, her eyes were opened to know good and evil, but eating the fruit brought fear and guilt instead of the godlike attributes he promised. In the final analysis, regardless of the potential benefits, Eve would not have eaten the fruit if she believed it would result in her death. I think she simply chose to trust the serpent rather than God.

[Athanasius]

Eating the fruit was a violation of God's commandment, which is rebellion. And Eve clearly understood the prohibition, for she repeated to the serpent what God had said about it.

Not quite (emphasis my own):

Genesis 2:15 - 17

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Genesis 3:2 - 3

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Eve added the prohibition against touching the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, whereas the narrative in chapter 2 prohibits eating, but not touching. This is potentially a failure of Adam to teach Eve properly, which leads us to something interesting...

...If Eve thought that she'd die if she touched the fruit, and then doesn't, this error of knowledge lends credence to the lie of the serpent. She touched the fruit and didn't die, just like the serpent said. How did that error creep in such that the serpent could capitalise?

In any case, Adam who was with Eve failed to stop Eve from eating the fruit (ch. 3v6). And, if Eve understood the command to prohibit touching, and she touched, then to her, that is still an act of disobedience -- rebellion is something else, I think. But again, in that instance, if Eve believed that God didn't tell the truth, then how mitigating is that circumstance in terms of culpability?

(And then we circle back to my post above.)