Question #1: Hello Dr Luginbill, I am re-reading the SR series and I believe you referred to the next Eden (1,000 years) as the 7th Eden and the new heavens and new earth as the 8th. According to the SR series I understand the original earth before Gen 1:2 to be the first Eden and Adam's the second but where do we find evidence of a 3rd ,4th, or 5th Eden in the Bible. Thanks
Response #1: You can find the detailed exposition of this subject at the following link: in SR #1: "The Seven Edens". The word "Eden" is a name, of course, a Hebrew word meaning "delight". As such it is a descriptive title as is the word "paradise" (a Persian word originally applied to the kings private hunting preserve). Therefore "heaven", "paradise", Eden, and "New Jerusalem" are in this respect synonyms in that they each refer to the place of God's blessing upon His creatures and fellowship with His creatures (as opposed to the world or "cosmos" in which we are sojourning). Naturally, each "Eden" has different characteristics since it will only be in the final or seventh Eden where absolute harmony and completeness has again been restored forever to God's creation that all of His elect creatures will enjoy perfect fellowship and blessing with the Father and the Son in a perfect, eternal place of joy forever (i.e., the New Jerusalem). Until that blessed time, these other "Edens" represent stages on the way in the plan of God until that blessed end is achieved according to the perfect working out of the plan of God. You are correct that the next, that is, the penultimate "Eden", is the Millennial Jerusalem where our Lord Jesus will rule the world in a reign of unprecedented blessing and peace for a thousand years. This penultimate Eden does not endure forever because until all sin is eradicated from the universe, corruption and rebellion will continue to be destabilizing forces even with perfect government and no material lack (as the Gog-Magog rebellion chronicled in Revelation chapter 20:17-20 makes clear). Notice that there is always a place of rest and blessing provided by God, and that these seven places are consecutive as the plan of God precedes through creature history (see the above link for scripture references). In order the seven "Edens" are:
*1) The Original Earth
2) Elect Angelic kind protected in the Third Heaven
*3) "Eden" (of Adam and Eve)
4) Abraham's Bosom (below the earth opposite Torments – now evacuated to the third heaven)
5) Saved Mankind admitted to the Third Heaven (as a result of Jesus' victorious ascension)
*6) The Millennial Jerusalem
*7) The New Jerusalem
One very interesting facet of all this is that a good argument can be made from the biblical evidence that the four earthly Edens (marked by asterisks) are located in the same place on earth, namely Jerusalem (that is definitively true of the last two). The separation of numbers 2, 4, and 5 have to do with the issue of sin and the separation from it that a holy God has to maintain. The original paradise, the first Eden, was on earth (a fact that accounts for the fossil record), and it was here that the original "mountain of God" was located, most likely, I would argue, also at Jerusalem. For while Sinai is the mountain of judgment, Zion is the mountain of God's blessing (cf. Heb.12:18-24; cf. the "Mount Zion" of Rev.14:1). The second Eden was necessary to provide a place where angelic kind could continue to fellowship with God after the universe was "blacked out" in judgment following Satan's rebellion (see the link: SR 2: "The Genesis Gap"), and to continue to commune with Him thereafter once He turned the lights back on in the seven Genesis days of re-creation. This second paradise could not be on the earth which had been devastated and was only refurbished during the seven days. The third Eden, Eden proper, was located on high ground (the rivers flowed out of it -- downhill; Gen.2:10ff.), and was also most likely located at the spot of Jerusalem, a very telling way for the Lord to respond to Satan's attempt to take over the first Eden: in that very spot the Lord began the human race, the vehicle whereby the fallen angels and their leader the devil would be refuted and replaced (the rest of the Satanic Rebellion series develops this theme; see the link). The fourth Eden, located under the earth, could not be in the temporarily removed place of God, since before the reality of the cross, it was inappropriate to allow the departed saints egress into God's presences because the price for this had to be paid for first by the blood of Christ (cf. Rom.3:25-26). But after the cross, Jesus in His ascension "led captivity captive", bringing all the Old Testament saints in His train to heaven, the fifth Eden, where all the departed saints now enjoy face to face fellowship with God after the reality of the redemption of the cross and our Lord's resurrection (Eph.4:8; cf. Ps.68:18; 146:7b; Is.14:17b; 42:7; 49:9; 61:1; Lk.23:43; et cf. Lk.16:19-31). We now await our Lord's return – to Jerusalem, His millennial capital on the mountain of God, the sixth Eden (Is.2:2ff.). And once human history has run its course and the last member of the family of God is saved at the end of the Millennium, the abode of the Father, the New Jerusalem, the seventh Eden, will descend from heaven on to the very spot where it all began (Rev.21-22), and God and saved humanity and elect angelic kind will fellowship forever in perfect blessing, outstripping the Eden of Adam and Eve and all the paradises real and imagined which have preceded to an incalculable degree.
And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold,
the tabernacle of God is [now] with men. And He will tent with
them, and they will be His people, and He Himself will be their
In anticipation of that blessed day.
Question #2: There have been a lot of news reports lately that claim human beings originally came out of Africa. Was Eden located in Africa? Or were Adam and Eve sent to Africa after the fall of sin? I found one website designed for Christians who believe in old earth that says Eden was not in Africa. Do you agree?
Response #2: The Bible doesn't say for certain, but it does give us enough information to draw a pretty reasonable conclusion: Eden was almost certainly located at present day Jerusalem. For one thing, four rivers run out of Adam and Eve's Eden, indicating that this Eden was high ground instead of a lowland place (since water runs downhill after all). The second thing to consider is that this Eden pre-dated the flood, an event of mammoth proportions when it comes the reshaping of much of the earth's surface by the mighty hydrological forces unleashed thereby (e.g., it is possible that the Grand Canyon was formed in the days following the flood by the run-off of all that water), so the fact that Jerusalem is not today extremely high, though it is higher than much of the surrounding country, is easily explainable (Jerusalem is still an elevated place, and will be much more so by far in the Millennium: Is.2:2). The third thing to consider is that there are actually seven Edens in the Bible, and they are all connected, directly or indirectly, to the same place. The last one, the New Jerusalem, descends from heaven into the place of the penultimate one, the Millennial Jerusalem . . . inviting us to posit that all the earthly Edens of scripture, from the Mountain of God whence Satan fell to our final home with the Father and the Lamb, have all been located in the exact same place, namely, Jerusalem. For much more on this please see the link: in SR 1 "The Seven Edens".
Science positing that human beings came out of Africa is only so much fancy. There is of course nothing like "proof" for this theory. The big problem with science vis- -vis faith today is that science fails to distinguish between empirical conclusions and unprovable theories. If a scientist publishes something in a reputable journal the public is supposed to take it as gospel – even though of course other scientists are allowed to take issue with it in whole or in part and fully understand that at best any advance is partial and often wrong in some aspects – and that is the case with empirical research, never mind theoretical silliness like evolution. We can demonstrate gravity by dropping a pencil. We cannot demonstrate evolution, even if someone were to give us billions dollars and the best laboratories in the world to try and do so (because of course it cannot be demonstrated since there is no such thing nor has anyone ever seen any such thing or found any true empirical evidence of any such thing). I remember one time someone was questioning Adam and Eve on the grounds that all the human race's chromosomes would be concentrated in just two people. But of course if a person believes evolution one has to assume that a single "human" is the origin of all our chromosomes, somehow having originated by mutation . . . and then somehow found something else to mate with (a tuna fish?) and the result was, miraculously, not a human-tuna or a tuna-human, but another human, human enough, in fact, to perpetuate the "new species".
It takes much more faith to believe that nonsense than it ever would just to trust God.
In our Lord Jesus,
Question #3: I've been reading through many of your articles and they are very impressive. Thank you so much for this great work. I have a question regarding the original garden of Eden. You mention that the so-called "mountain of God" was on the original earth and I think that makes some sense. However, you don't subsequently offer an explanation of what happened to the mountain. Was it moved? Does it still exist? I would be very curious to know your opinion.
Response #3: Thank you so much for your encouraging comments! I believe that Jerusalem was the site of that first pre-"fall of Satan" Eden (and the later Eden of Adam and Eve as well). Even in the time of Adam and Eve, major rivers are said to run out of Eden (including the Tigris and Euphrates), almost necessitating that it was a significantly elevated location. Today, of course, while Jerusalem is a high point in Israel, it is nothing like a "mountain", and not the source of any major river system. However my guess is that it was greatly reduced in size by the divine judgment that occasioned the destruction of the original earth (reconstructed after the Genesis gap during the seven days re-creation), and possibly eroded or reduced still more during the great flood (which must have produced many major topographical changes worldwide). We do know that during the Millennium Jerusalem will indeed once again become a mountain, "raised up" above all other heights as the place of our Lord's millennial throne (Is.2:2; Zech.14:10; cf. Is.2:3; Zech.8:3); and we also know that the New Jerusalem which will rest centered on that same place will extremely tall (Rev.21:16). Thus there is scriptural precedent for seeing these earthly Edens as all focused on the same place, while the present heavenly Eden functions as the royal palace "in temporary exile", so to speak, as the God allows the Satanic rebellion to play itself out in the course of human history until He brings on the Millennial Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. God's program and His creative reductions and enlargements of the central place in the world are not constrained by the limits of geography as secular science understands them (please see the link: "The Seven Edens" in SR 1).
In our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:12-14: 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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
These above verses of Paul's letter to the Romans were given to me as proof that the Law was also given in the time of Adam. For the wages of sin is death and sin is the transgression of the law that death reigned from Adam to Moses because of transgressions of that law. Your thoughts?
Response #4: There was no Mosaic Law before Moses. Not only is that (I would think) patently obvious from the accounts of Genesis and Exodus, but the matter is put directly and succinctly by Paul in Galatians:
The law, introduced 430 years later (i.e., after the promise to Abraham, cf. vv.15-16), does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. Galatians 3:17b NIV
The passage in Romans you ask about is better translated as follows:
(13) For [even] before the Law [was handed down], there was [indeed] sin in the world, but, when there was no Law, sin was not being taken into account [by us as it was after the Law]. (14) Nevertheless, sin did reign [over mankind during the period] from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin in a manner similar to Adam (i.e., by violating a clearly stated divine prohibition), who is a type of the One [destined] to come (i.e., Christ, the Last Adam). Romans 5:13-14
Understood in the proper way above, we can see that Paul is making the same essential point in both passages (though with slightly different purposes in each case): The Mosaic Law is a relatively late development in the history of salvation and does not change the essential ground rules. Sin is sin before and after the law (Rom.5:13-14), and God's promise of salvation is the same before and after the law (Gal.3:17).
For one thing (apropos of your question), there were animal sacrifices thousands of years before the giving of the law. They occur throughout Genesis, and the first takes place through the agency of God Himself: the coats of skin with which He clothes Adam and Eve in place of their own evil "good works" attire (i.e., the "fig" leaves). Genesis 3:21 takes place in close proximity to the "protoevangelium", that is, the promise of the Messiah in Genesis 3:15 of the Seed to come. So we have from the point of the fall of mankind both the promise and the illustration of salvation. For the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross is, of course, the truth behind all animal sacrifice, whether of the law or before the law (on all of this, see the link: "The Judgment of Genesis 3" in SR #3).
Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable because it was, as with the "fig" leaves, a self-willed, self-invented sacrifice of do-it-yourself human works of the sort that mankind likes to call "good" but which God calls "evil". We can only approach God through what He has done for us (Christ's sacrifice), not through the works of our hands which we may think of as "good" but which, since they are conceived of and perpetrated in the lust of our flesh apart from the Spirit of God, are really evil through and through. Cain manifests very clearly what was really in his heart in approaching God not in the way that God had specified but in the way he willed when as a result of the rejection of his human-good approach, he killed his brother out of jealousy of God's approbation of Abel (see the link in SR #4: "Self-Righteousness").
The revelation of divine truth has always been progressive. That is, up until the close of the canon of scripture, mankind was progressively being blessed with new specifics about God's truth, and we can expect this to continue in the Millennium. The giving of the Law was part of that process, but was not the beginning of it (as God made Himself and His truth known to believers before the Law) nor the end of it (as most of the Old and all of the New Testament and of course the revelation of Jesus Christ Himself all post-date the Law). However, some basic aspects of divine truth have been known since mankind left Eden: 1) basic right and wrong leading to an understanding of our essential sinfulness (the conscience empowered through the eating of the fruit of the tree of "knowing good and evil": see link), 2) the existence of God and essentials of His character leading to an understanding of where we must go for the solution to death (i.e., "natural revelation"; cf. Rom.1:18-32; Ps.19), 3) the way of salvation for those who choose to seek it (as adumbrated in animal sacrifice as discussed above). For all its wonders, the Law is neither the Alpha nor the Omega of divine truth, and, misinterpreted as it often has been, can become a stumbling block to those who misunderstand its essential purpose of demonstrating our need for a Savior (Rom.7:13).
In Him who is the end of the Law for all who believe, our dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Question #5: I understand that there was no Mosaic Law before Moses. But I am thinking that most of what can be said about sacrifices before the law is mostly speculation since Scripture contains little in the way describing the exact purpose of the offerings and sacrifices. Knowing good from evil does not mean you know to kill something for the atonement of sin. And how would you know what sin was without a law to tell you ? Was Cain's offering for sins or for the harvest? What kind of sacrifice was Abraham going to make when he went to the mountain with his son ? To be sure, sacrifices before the law, and after, were forerunners of the true sacrifice but it seems obvious that people of the times did not realize that and even after the law was given to Moses, most did not understand what it was.
Response #5: What can we can say for certain is that in the early days of human history, God had direct conversations with people in much greater frequency than He does today – no doubt in part precisely because today we have the scriptures (and it is important that the authority of the Word of God not be undermined). For example, God had extensive conversations with Cain (an unbeliever), and we have the text synopsis of one of them in Genesis four. Therefore it is right to assume that He had extensive conversations with believers as well (e.g., Abel et al.). And since Abel offered sacrifices with which God was pleased (and Cain is brought up short in a way that makes it clear he knew what he should have offered), we can say without much doubt that God had made clear the reason and the purpose and the method and the manner of animal sacrifice before the law (to those who expressed any interest in worshiping God, at any rate). Before the law, the plan of God was the same – Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever. Before the law, believers who wanted to grow closer to God could not do so through His written Word because there was no written Word. Therefore we are right to assume that He made other provision (and that explains the extensive personal conversations). Since we know from New Testament scripture what the real purpose and meaning of the Mosaic sacrifices were, and since there is no indication that they are any different from the previous sacrifices made by believers (cf. the altars built by the patriarchs), and since, as you point out, Abraham was even commanded to sacrifice his son, a deliberate parallel and analogy to the sacrifice of Christ (Heb.11:17-19; cf. Jas.2:21-24), then it seems to me that it would only be out of an unhealthy measure of caution and skepticism not to conclude that the coats of skin in Genesis 3 and all of the sacrifices before the law do not have precisely the same symbolic meaning as those of the law as explained in the New Testament. This is more than speculation. Once we accept that there was special revelation before the written Word began to take form, then we have to accept that it was consistent 100% with the truth of God and the special revelation of the written Word down to the close of the canon with the book of Revelation. Since animal sacrifice in the Law always symbolizes the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross (cf. the ritual of communion which directly connects the two through the "blood and body" of Christ), it is inconceivable to me based upon my own hermeneutic principles that somehow the sacrifices in the pre-law period would have a different symbolism, especially in light of the facts that 1) such an alternative symbolism is not hinted at anywhere and 2) nowhere is there any guidance given that suggests we should not "connect the dots" – indeed, the dots are there precisely so that we may connect them in this way, and our relative ignorance about these issues cannot be taken as proof that all those involved at the time were acting with the same measure of ignorance.
However, on this second aspect of your question (i.e., the issue of ignorance) I agree with you in part, but would offer a slightly different interpretation. There has always been much in the revelation of God that is not understood at first glance or first attempt. There are very good reasons for that as God tests the quality and persistence of our faith. New Christians with wonderful intentions do not "get" everything in the Bible the first time they read it. And indeed, I do not know anyone with even the slightest measure of prudence or humility who would be so bold as to proclaim they understood it all. Certain basic things have always had to come first, and understanding is built on understanding for all who apply themselves to the Word of God in hopes of drawing closer to Him. That is a big part of "walking with God", and it always has been. God generally starts with very simple guidance, and complete understanding, if it comes, comes to the mature later on. Just as a child may not understand at first all the implications of "don't talk to strangers" or the reasoning behind it until they grow up, so we too gain in our understanding and perspective with every forward stride in the Christian walk. That is a round-about way of saying that I am sure that many and maybe most of the Old Testament individuals who offered sacrifice (unbelievers as well as believers) may well not have understood all the implications of what they were doing (for one thing, we are told very clearly by scripture that the "in a glass darkly" principle applied to the details of the first advent: 1Pet.1:10-12; cf. 1Cor.13:12). But that would ultimately be for the most part a result of insufficient desire to know God – just as before the Reformation the knowledge of true grace and any manner of correct doctrines were generally misunderstood or unappreciated, or just as today there is much false teaching which is heartily embraced: the real reason behind incorrect scriptural positions and their acceptance in the end boils down to the principle that failure to understand the truth is always a direct result of underlying apathy or negativity to the truth. For those who want to know God, God has always made Himself and His truth available, and in a limitless way. The only person who ever really limits our spiritual growth is we ourselves.
In our dear Lord Jesus,
Question #6: I have a question as to what occurred is in Gen 3:6. When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. You gave the indication that Eve was on her own - the fact that it states she wasn't has always seemed to me to be even more horrendous sin as Adam could have stopped her - however we know he didn't. This bald statement fills me with horror as how so easily led Adam was. (Have things changed?) I do appreciate life without her must have been a terrifying thought. And maybe
that is why the Lord says that we should not put anything in front of HIM including family. Matt 10:37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; However I do note that is does not say husband or wife.
Response #6: As to Adam being "with" Eve, I take that particular prepositional phrase to refer to the state of affairs after he got back "home"; I think it unlikely that Adam would have allowed such a conversation as Eve had with the serpent to take place without so much as a side comment (and this interpretation of positing Adam "off to work" when the devil struck also explains why the phrase "with him" comes in so late in the story). Satan waited until Eve was alone. What Adam found when he returned was a fait accompli, and that led him to the decision he then made (please see the link: "The Fall" in SR 3).
In our Lord Jesus,
Question #7: I've always been lead to believe that the animals in Eden were all herbivores and ate plants, then Adam sinned and they became carnivorous like now. However, does scripture indicate that sin entered only into mankind and the animals were like they are today even back then? Did the food chain exist in the garden or outside the garden wherever the animals were? Or did Adam's sin somehow change and affect the animals as well?
And on the tree of life, what was the purpose for that tree? In genesis 3.22 God says man can't eat from it lest he live forever. I always thought they were immortal before the fall, not necessarily needing food to live, and if they weren't immortal and could've died, what about the verse saying sin brought death. Wouldn't that suggest that if they hadn't sinned, they couldn't have died?
Also, what do you think Adam did in the garden to tend it? I don't imagine there would be any weeds in paradise.
Finally, all the translations I can find describe Adam as being with eve when she ate of the fruit. What was Adam doing? Are they translated wrong? Was Adam with her but not paying attention; was he falling into the same deception as eve and going along with it? How come he didn't say anything and stop her?
Response #7: Thank you for your questions – I'll try to tackle them one at a time. As to the animals, it is very clear from Genesis 3:17-19 that the curse Adam brought down upon himself and his progeny, all of us, affected the entire natural world, including the animal kingdom. This is also evident from Paul's treatment of the subject:
For I do not consider these present hardships in any way comparable to the glory destined to be revealed for us [at the 2nd Advent]. For all creation eagerly awaits the revelation of the sons of God. For the created world is now subject to futility - not of its own choosing, but because of Him who subjected it [as a consequence of Adam's sin] - but not without hope. For [at the 2nd Advent] the created world will be liberated from its enslavement to decay at the glorious liberation of the sons of God (i.e. our resurrection). For we know that the whole creation has been experiencing intense pain and agony right up until this present time. And not only the created world, but we too who have received the Holy Spirit as a foretaste [of the good things to come] agonize within ourselves as we eagerly await our adoption, that is, the redemption of our body (i.e. resurrection). This is the hope with which we were saved. Romans 8:18-24a
During the Millennium, we will once again see things restored (to a great degree at least) to their "pre-curse" status, when the "wolf will dwell with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf with the lion and the fatling together, with a little boy leading them" (Isaiah 11:6-9), and the world will bloom under the government of the Son of God Himself (see the link: in SR #5 "The Millennium").
As to the tree of life, whether Adam and Eve were capable of dying physically before the fall is really a moot point for two reasons: 1) they did fall; 2) even if they had never fallen, there is not the slightest chance that without falling they would have failed to partake of the tree of life (any more than there is the slightest chance that you or I would ever starve to death if we were surrounded by abundant resources and abundant food. Since Adam and Eve had perfect bodies and lived in a perfect environment, I find it unlikely that they would have died even so if for some bizarre reason these sinless people had somehow sinfully and stubbornly decided to refrain from the tree of life. The tree of life apparently provided them with spiritual blessings and an enhanced ability to enjoy the physical ones as well (making it even less likely that there would ever have been any circumstance under which they would have refrained). But outside of Eden, the tree would only have been a means for them to continue to live abnormally long lives after the fall (and that is one of the reasons they are barred from Eden: Gen.3:22-24). For more on the tree of life, see the link: in SR #3 "The Tree of Life".
On work in the garden, God made us to work, even before it became a necessity. We are not told much about Adam's "job" and your points are well taken. We are however told that he was responsible for "naming" the animals et al. so that his job of superintendence (i.e., "ruling" over the re-created earth) probably involved interesting investigation, discovery and learning (Adam as "first scientist") and was no doubt more enjoyable than any job anyone has had since (and without any of the negatives whatsoever: no boss, no politics, no disagreeable tasks, no fatigue, etc.). Many people find such investigative activities very stimulating and pursue them when they have spare time (as in the case of King Solomon: 1Ki.4:33). There is more about all of this in general at this link: in BB 3A, "Status Quo in Paradise".
Finally, I don't know what translations you are using, but at least in the Hebrew there is no definite indication that Adam was "around" when the temptation was taking place or when Eve succumbed. He doesn't show up (i.e., is not "with" her), until Genesis 3:6b after the fact, but apparently didn't put up much of a fight at that point, being too late to affect the outcome. There is a reason for this, as I explain in BB 3A (link at "The Fall"):
When Adam returned to the center of the garden (after an enjoyable day of observing and classifying Eden's flora and fauna, no doubt), his expectation of another blissful homecoming to the woman he so adored was quickly overturned. The Bible does not record for us the scene when Eve met him that day, but we can be sure that Adam realized immediately that all was not right in Eden, and relatively certain that he, with his exceptional intellect, was quick to apprehend that Eve had eaten of the forbidden fruit - the only potential source in Eden of "trouble" (a concept hitherto not experienced). Eating the fruit had instantly rendered Eve spiritually dead, had begun the inevitable process of physical degeneration, and had destined her for the carrying out of God's sentence of death in eternity (barring gracious intervention on His part). However we need not assume that her body had undergone any noticeable change that would have alerted Adam to the new situation. What did change though, what had to have changed significantly was her behavior. She was no longer perfect, and she knew it. She was now mortal, death was inevitable, and she knew it. She had been terribly deceived, was alienated from God and the life of God, and knew it. Her eyes were indeed opened, opened to all the fear and horror which her new status as a sinner bequeathed. Eve was in grave trouble, wracked with guilt, and terribly afraid. The state she must have been in when Adam came home we can scarcely imagine.
The mention scripture makes about Adam's part in the fall is that Eve "gave [some of the fruit] also to her husband with her and he ate". These two short but all important prepositional phrases speak volumes about Adam's reaction to the alarming situation he encountered upon returning home that evening. The Bible is quite clear that Adam did not eat the forbidden fruit because he was deceived about what the consequences of so doing would be (1Tim.2:14). Adam knew very well that, by taking the forbidden fruit from his wife's hand and eating it as she had done, he too would suffer the three-fold death whose initial consequences he could plainly see being played out in the woman he loved. Confronted by the love of his life, his perfect soul-mate, weeping inconsolably and having passed irrevocably beyond the pale of paradise, Adam now faced an impossible decision. How could he possibly desert the one person who made him complete, his own flesh and bone? She was helpless, desperate, and in dire need. How could he just turn his back on her and walk away? The twin phrases "to her husband with her" make it clear enough that such was essentially Adam's thinking: he was "her husband", and would stay "with her". Adam did not flee at the sight of his fallen wife. He did not separate himself from her for a time to think things through. He did not consult God about the situation. Adam's compassion for this woman he loved so deeply was such that he stayed with her, consoled her, listened to her, gave in to her, and ate the fruit. Adam was not bullied into it; he was not nagged into it; he was not tricked into it. Contemplating the possibility of a life without Eve, and with his heart breaking to help her, he cast his lot in "with her" and thus joined her in death.
The romantic and noble aspect of Adam's decision should not inspire us. He was every bit as wrong as Eve. In fact his conduct was the more culpable, because he knew exactly what he was doing. Both of our first parents betrayed God (Eve in ignorance, Adam in cognizance), and both transgressed for essentially the same reason: failure to believe and trust Him. Eve was deceived about the nature and the content of what He had said; Adam failed to trust Him, failed to believe that for a God who could create an Eve, nothing would be impossible. We are, of course, not told what "would have happened" or "might have happened" had Adam waited on the Lord instead of immediately trying to solve Eve's problem for her in the only manner he could devise (i.e., by joining her in her sin), but with the entire Bible as our guide, the one thing we can say for certain is that "nothing is impossible for God" (cf. Gen.18:14; Job 42:2; Jer.32:17; Matt.19:26; Lk.1:37; 18:27). By assuming, as Adam may have done, that his added sinfulness would force God to "reevaluate", the first man stepped into exactly the same trap of arrogance, the same false assurance, that had originally trapped the devil: i.e., assuming himself to be irreplaceable.
So I am fairly certain that Adam would have stopped Eve from even being drawn into a protracted conversation with the devil without contradicting the serpents lies and thus thwarting the temptation. Satan knew this very well, so he struck while Adam was away and let Eve become Adam's his temptation, that is, the contemplation of the loss of this person he loved so much – unless he threw his lot in with her.
In our Lord who loved us so much He died in our place that we might live forever with Him.