Adam later partook of the fruit when it was offered to him by his wife. The apostle shows that the man’s sinning differed from that of his wife in that Adam was not deceived by the Tempter’s propaganda, hence he put no stock in the claim that eating the fruit from the tree could be done with impunity. (1Ti 2:14) Adam’s eating, therefore, must have been due to desire for his wife, and he ‘listened to her voice’ rather than to that of his God. (Ge 3:6, 17) He thus conformed to her ways and will, and through her, to those of God’s Adversary. He therefore ‘missed the mark,’ failed to act in God’s image and likeness, did not reflect God’s glory, and, in fact, insulted his heavenly Father.

The apostle Paul shows the special connection of pa·raʹba·sis with violation of established law in saying that “where there is no law, neither is there any transgression.” (Ro 4:15) Hence, in the absence of law the sinner would not be called a “transgressor.” Consistently, Paul and the other Christian writers use pa·raʹba·sis (and pa·ra·baʹtes, “transgressor”) in the context of law. (Compare Ro 2:23-27; Ga 2:16, 18; 3:19; Jas 2:9, 11.) Adam, having received a direct command from God, was therefore guilty of “transgression” of stated law. His wife, though deceived, was also guilty of transgression of that law. (1Ti 2:14) The Law covenant spoken to Moses by angels was added to the Abrahamic covenant “to make transgressions manifest,” that ‘all things together might be delivered up to the custody of sin,’ legally convicting all of Adam’s descendants, Israel included, of sin, and demonstrating that all clearly needed forgiveness and salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Ga 3:19-22) Thus, if Paul had put himself back under the Mosaic Law, he would have made himself a “transgressor” again of that Law, subject to its condemnation, and would thereby have shoved aside the undeserved kindness of God that provided release from that condemnation.​—Ga 2:18-21; compare 3:1-4, 10.