The Sin of Adam and Eve

[Christian2]

Hello,

I was taught that Adam and Eve sinned when they ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. God commanded them not to eat the fruit or they would "surely die." However, they ate the fruit before having the knowledge of good and evil, so doesn't it follow that if they didn't know what they were doing was wrong or a sin, then they weren't guilty of sinning?

Also, they couldn't have known what to "die" meant, so they didn't have the knowledge of sin or punishment before they ate the fruit.

So, where does sin come into this picture?

[Jac3510]

Hey Christian,

If I may, I think I have a few answers for you . . .

However, they ate the fruit before having the knowledge of good and evil, so doesn't it follow that if they didn't know what they were doing was wrong or a sin, then they weren't guilty of sinning?

Adam may not have had "the knowledge of good and evil" yet, but he still knew that he was not supposed to eat that particular fruit. So, he did know that what he was doing was wrong.

What I'd like to ask you is this: What do you consider "the knowledge of good and evil?" I'll go ahead and give you my take on it so as to avoid anything too long and drawn out. I often put it this way: Does a fish feel wet? Of course, the answer is no. And why not? Because that's his environment . . . he doesn't know any different. When we look at fallen man, we ask have to ask ourselves about our knowledge of evil. If there were no absolute good, no morally perfect ideal that we are somehow aware of, then why do we "feel" like the world should be different . . . better, somehow? Why do we feel like this world "isn't as it should be?" We should be like the fish that doesn't feel wet.

I'd argue that Adam, initially, didn't feel like world wasn't "as it should be." He had no idea what "wrong" or "sin" or "evil" felt like. He simply lived in "good," as a fish lives in the water. So, we say he had no knowledge of good and evil, as a fish has no idea what it is like to be wet until he is taken out of the water by the fisherman. Suddenly, he feels wrong. He longs to be back in the water where things are "as they should be." Same with Adam. So, while he had no knowledge of evil, he still knew what it was, because God had told him what not to do. Therefore, when he ate of the fruit, he did wrong, and he was completely aware of it. That act of doing wrong introduced him to the concept of guilt . . . he was, as we may say, a fish out of the water

Also, they couldn't have known what to "die" meant, so they didn't have the knowledge of sin or punishment before they ate the fruit.

Well, this is one of the problems I have with YEC (young earth creationism). How DID Adam know what death was unless he'd seen it? I'd suggest you check out the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis 1. Also, you might find this link helpful. Lastly, Rich (the author of this site) deals directly with the question, Was there any death before the Fall?. That particular article is a bit more aggressive than the others, but you might find it helpful nonetheless.

So, where does sin come into this picture?

Briefly, I'd say that Adam was created in a state of moral perfection. He was given a choice as to whether or not to follow God, which required God to give Adam a breakable command. This was found in the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By eating of its fruit, Adam sinned against God, became morally imperfect, and thus came under the judgment of death. As like begets like, Adam's offspring were therefore fallen as well.

Hope that helps,

God bless

[Christian2]

Jac3510,

Thank you for your response. I liked your analogy of the fish. Very good!

I printed out the articles that you recommended but haven't had the chance to read them with the exception of the death of animals. I can see now that Adam and Eve did understand what to "die" meant and that makes their decision to eat that fruit even worse.

But, if they weren't guilty of sin before they ate that fruit, they certainly were guilty of it after they ate the fruit. Look what happens after they ate. Eve blames the serpent and then Adam says:

12Then the man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate."

Adam blames Eve and not only that, he puts the blame on God! Essentially saying that if God hadn't put her in the garden, he wouldn't have eaten the fruit. It's the old passing the buck trick. Blaming God would be the ultimate no, no.

This is interesting Scripture:

22Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- 23therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Adam and Eve must have been allowed to eat of the tree of life--the tree of eternal life. So while they were in the Garden, they were assured of eternal life. And look what God said above. He said that they had to leave because He did not want them to eat of the tree of life any longer and to make sure He put guards in front of the Garden. Adam and Eve lost the way to eternal life.

I think that as a result of Adam and Eve being denied access to the tree of life, we too are denied access because if Adam and Eve hadn't been thrown out of the garden, we would have been born there too. Now we are also outside of the garden. Now we have to find a way to have access to that tree. I believe through Jesus Christ.

I have a Muslim friend who tells me that Adam and Eve just "forgot" that they weren't supposed to eat that fruit. It was just a matter of forgetfulness and not sin. Islam has no concept of original sin. He told me that God forgave Adam and Eve and when I pointed out while that may be so, God also punished them which indicates to me that we all have to pay for our sins. Not so says my friend, all we have to do is ask for forgiveness and God will grant it because God is loving and merciful. He goes on to say that God did not need to sacrifice Jesus because all we have to do is repent, ask for forgiveness and it will be granted. He has no concept of the need for atonement that Jesus' death on the cross provided.

Your response was very helpful. Thank you.

God bless.

[Anonymous]

On a side note, did God know for sure that Adam would sin? If he did, then why did God command Adam not to eat of the fruit when in the first place he already knew that Adam would certainly eat of it? I mean, God was already certain (if he was) that Adam would eat of the fruit, thus his command to not to eat of the fruit was merely a pretense and did not carry any genuine command as to prevent the eating of the fruit.

What do you think?

[Felgar]

God knew what Adam would choose, even though Adam still made the choice of his own volition. Just because knows our choices does not mean that we don't have free will.

Why didn't God take Adam's choice away once He knew that Adam would fall? Because doing so would have taken the meaning out of our relationship with Him, and would have invalidated our purpose for being created which was to have a personal relationship with God.

[Anonymous]

God knew what Adam would choose, even though Adam still made the choice of his own volition. Just because knows our choices does not mean that we don't have free will.

Why didn't God take Adam's choice away once He knew that Adam would fall? Because doing so would have taken the meaning out of our relationship with Him, and would have invalidated our purpose for being created which was to have a personal relationship with God.

I think you did not get my point. I asked, "If God already knew that Adam would certainly eat of the fruit, why did God STILL command Adam not to eat of the fruit when in the first place he already knew that Adam would certainly eat of it and thus inevitable?" God knew it was inevitable but why seriously (??) command Adam not to eat of it? Did God still hope that it was avoidable when in the first place he already knew that it was unavoidable?

[Felgar]

I think you did not get my point. I asked, "If God already knew that Adam would certainly eat of the fruit, why did God STILL command Adam not to eat of the fruit when in the first place he already knew that Adam would certainly eat of it and thus inevitable?" God knew it was inevitable but why seriously (??) command Adam not to eat of it? Did God still hope that it was avoidable when in the first place he already knew that it was unavoidable?

Without the command NOT to eat the fruit, how could Adam ever have disobeyed it? The command was God giving us Free Will - until that point we never had it.

[Kurieuo]

Interesting theological thought—until God gave that command, we never had the freedom to be against God. I've not heard that before (or I'd forgotten if I had), but I think it makes a lot of sense.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

I think you did not get my point. I asked, "If God already knew that Adam would certainly eat of the fruit, why did God STILL command Adam not to eat of the fruit when in the first place he already knew that Adam would certainly eat of it and thus inevitable?" God knew it was inevitable but why seriously (??) command Adam not to eat of it? Did God still hope that it was avoidable when in the first place he already knew that it was unavoidable?

Without the command NOT to eat the fruit, how could Adam ever have disobeyed it? The command was God giving us Free Will - until that point we never had it.

I disagree. The command NOT to eat of the fruit was NOT God giving us FREEWILL. Freewill was there when we were created. Adam was free to do everything in the garden even BEFORE the command. He was as free NOT to name a lion as "Lion" as he was free to name it as "Lion." True freedom does not necessitate the possiblity of diobedience on the part of Adam.

You asked: "Without the command NOT to eat the fruit, how could Adam ever have disobeyed it?" Are you saying that in heaven we wont have freewill anymore since there will be no command not to do this or not to do that? We Have freewill whether there is a command not to do something

But again, that's not the concern of my question. My concern is this: When God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit, did God hope Adam would avoid eating it when in the first place he already knew that it was unavoidable for Adam to eat of the fruit? If God was not expecting Adam to obey because he certainly knew he would disobey, then the command was not really preventive. But if the command was not preventive, why command Adam not to eat of it?

[RGeeB]

What I see from commands is the incredible mercy of God. How frustrating it must be to know the future of Adam, yet try to prevent it by issuing a 'get out' clause - You shall not eat or you will surely die.

God knew that He would have to forsake His Son to pay the price for Adam's sin, even before it was committed. It is an aspect of divine mercy that God lets us in on the secrets of how to avoid His judgement.

Personally, I think we should be grateful and accept it instead of questioning its logic. God's perfect love towards us is beyong reasoning. So is His desire for a personal relationship with us at any cost - Even if it was through the expensive route of disobedience.

[Felgar]

I think you did not get my point. I asked, "If God already knew that Adam would certainly eat of the fruit, why did God STILL command Adam not to eat of the fruit when in the first place he already knew that Adam would certainly eat of it and thus inevitable?" God knew it was inevitable but why seriously (??) command Adam not to eat of it? Did God still hope that it was avoidable when in the first place he already knew that it was unavoidable?

Without the command NOT to eat the fruit, how could Adam ever have disobeyed it? The command was God giving us Free Will - until that point we never had it.

I disagree. The command NOT to eat of the fruit was NOT God giving us FREEWILL. Freewill was there when we were created. Adam was free to do everything in the garden even BEFORE the command. He was as free NOT to name a lion as "Lion" as he was free to name it as "Lion." True freedom does not necessitate the possiblity of diobedience on the part of Adam.

You asked: "Without the command NOT to eat the fruit, how could Adam ever have disobeyed it?" Are you saying that in heaven we wont have freewill anymore since there will be no command not to do this or not to do that? We Have freewill whether there is a command not to do something

But again, that's not the concern of my question. My concern is this: When God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit, did God hope Adam would avoid eating it when in the first place he already knew that it was unavoidable for Adam to eat of the fruit? If God was not expecting Adam to obey because he certainly knew he would disobey, then the command was not really preventive. But if the command was not preventive, why command Adam not to eat of it?

Well there's freedom to act and then there's free will. Adam had 'freedom' so to speak in that he could wake and sleep, name the animals etc. But he didn't have free will in the sense of being able to disobey God - he was innocent, and since God didn't give any commands to obey or not, how could he violate them? Rememer the scriptures say, 'where there is no law there in no transgression.'

As for our eternity, I actually believe that we will have our 'free will' taken from us. Since all pain and fear is removed, how could we be able to reject God? Rejecting God would necessarily cause pain and fear. Nevertheless we will have freedom to act - to do this or that, to fellowship with other souls, to explore the universe?, certainly to worship God. Though, that existance will be so different from this it's hard to relate in physical terms.

As for the millennial kingdom we'll still have full free will. It's not removed until the new heaven and new earth. Remember Satan takes 1/3 again after the end of the millenium, so clearly there's free will there.

[Anonymous]

Well there's freedom to act and then there's free will. Adam had 'freedom' so to speak in that he could wake and sleep, name the animals etc. But he didn't have free will in the sense of being able to disobey God - he was innocent, and since God didn't give any commands to obey or not, how could he violate them? Rememer the scriptures say, 'where there is no law there in no transgression.'

So what's the point? Are you saying that God had to place Adam in a position where he could choose whether to obey or disobey so as to prove his love for God? But that's exactly is my concern. Why did God STILL place Adam in a position of making a choice knowing full well that Adam would choose to disobey? For God to place Adam on that position is very irrelevant since he already knew that Adam would choose to disobey. And to make it more problematic, according to traditional view, God certainly knew that at least billions of years ago before he created Adam.

Do you believe that after God contemplated all the results (one is billions of people would go to hell), God still went ahead creating Adam and expected that it would turn out differently from what he knew it would be? If not, then it's God's will that billions of people go to hell. Or, maybe he was helpless not to create Adam, which as a result, who would bring billions of people to hell.

[Kurieuo]

God created Adam and Eve fully aware that they (and us) would sin against Him. It is one reason, I believe why He never called His creation perfect (only "good" and "very good"). Why did God create the world still knowing people would choose against Him? Well He always intended us to be graciously (i.e., freely) saved through Christ:

"8 So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, by the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life--not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, 10 but it has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." (2 Timothy 1:8-10)

18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. (1 Peter 1:18-20)

Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness-- 2 a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time,[(Titus 1:1-2)

God additionally never intended this world within we live (which has pain and suffering in addition to much good) in to be final, but only temporary:

"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. (Isaiah 65:17)
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (Revelation 21:4)

Western Christianity seemed to go Augustine's response on why evil exists in the word, that is, because we sinned. Why does pain and suffering exist if an all-loving and powerful God exists? Well God created everything "perfect," but we essentially stuffed everything up, not God! Everything bad in the world is because of the sin of God's creation. But if everything was created perfect, then it seems strange to say something went wrong spontaneously with it. I can see ThirdOptions problem with such a view: if God knew, then God is not let off the hook from the pain and suffering (or "evil" if you will) in this world. Augustine's theodicy (solution to the problem of evil) does not successfully carry through unless one, as ThirdOption believes, restrains God's omniscience from knowing our future actions. And it is here that I would agree with ThirdOption.

But is there another solution? Sadly, I think we (Western Christendom) have ignored much of the Eastern Christian theologians (although that appears to be changing). Irenaeus reasoned that God did not intend creation to be initially perfect, but rather, God intended it to be a place of "soul making." As such, creating a world where pain and suffering can exist is perhaps the best world for "soul shaping." Hedonism says only pleasure is good, and pain is bad. Such I think is a very narrow view to take, as I believe refinement of character is good and in many ways better. The respect people usually receive who have gone through extremely painful times and come out the other side, is evidence that one's character refined by suffering is to be valued.

So I believe Irenaeus' solution (although I don't agree with everything he says) to be the most accurate. Therefore I believe that our temporary world was created as a grounds for people to choose to accept and love God, or reject Him. He also doesn't want us to be spoilt, but to be refined and have strong characters. And God has decided to bring this about by allowing pain and suffering to befall us, but for a time.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Why did God create the world still knowing people would choose against Him? Well He always intended us to be graciously (i.e., freely) saved through Christ:

But the choice Adam made (which God knew certainly would happen including the results) brought billions of people to hell. Well, that is solved if you are a Universalist. Therefore, I think, it doesn't seem quite explain the issue why God still went ahead creating man whom he certainly knew would sin. Before creating man, God already knew that Adam would sin which would result to man's condemnation and he knew as well that only a few would believe in Christ and billions would still go to hell if he would send Christ to redeem man. Now, it appears that God settled for less here. Going ahead with his plan of creating man (who would certainly rebel against him) for the intended purpose of "soul making/shaping" at the expense of billions of SOUL to be destroyed in hell. If God's concern was man's soul, he would not go ahead with what he foresaw would happen.

Iranaeus' solution is indeed problematic. If God created this world to be "soul making" and "soul shaping" via the sin of Adam which God knew would result to billions of souls in hell, then that doesn't pictures a loving God whose concern was man's SOUL. I dont believe that He intended this world to be "soul shaping/soul making" at the expense of billions of soul going to hell. Besides, again, that's not my concern.

Let me make it clear. My concern is not about:

1. If God knew our future choices then it removes our freedom of choice;
2. if God knew, then God is not let off the hook from the pain and suffering (or "evil" if you will) in this world though that would be correct.

Those are NOT my concern. My concern is centered on God himself and his Word in light of the traditional belief that God knew for certain man would do. That traditional belief, I guess, mars the integrity of God and his Word. If the Bible records (as inspired) that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit as to prevent him from eating, then any beliefs that contradict that command or somehow makes that command insincere should be questioned. And the belief that God certainly knew all man's future decisions poses a big threat to the integrity of God and his Word. Because if God certainly knew that Adam would definitely eat of the fruit, then the inspired command was insincere at best. If God knew for certain that Adam would definitely go to that direction (and thus inevitable), it is illogical for God to command Adam not to go to that direction. At best, the command was mere charade or man was set up by God.

Therefore, God could not be certain that Adam would definitely eat of the fruit. Of course, anyone could believe that God was certain of that but he must face the implication that God's command (His Word) was insincere and that He was not seriously hoping Adam not to eat of the fruit.

I would rather say that God knew Adam would POSSIBLY eat of the fruit and POSSIBLY not eat of the fruit. In short, God knew Adam MIGHT eat of the fruit and MIGHT NOT eat of the fruit. God knows both choices are POSSIBLE, none of which was CERTAIN in God's mind.

[RGeeB]

The question is - 'Why did God issue the command when He knew it was going to be disobeyed?'.

This is my thinking in a logical sequence:

1) God is timeless but there was a point in time when He wanted to extend the fellowship beyond the Trinity.
2) God's desire is to have a relationship with man - purpose of creation.
3) This is only possible by letting man have freewill and have opportunities to disobey or obey.
4) God knows all the details of the future.
5) Man does not know all the details of the future
6) God knows what the best approach to the relationship is - not being aware of good and evil.
7) God issues a command to innocent man and gives a straightforward reason - you will die.
8. Justice and mercy are in God's nature
9) Justice implies that He cannot condemn man to fall unless He has a good reason - which is justified by the issuing of the command.
10) Mercy is shown when He spells out His plan of salvation which He knew would happen prior to the issue of the command.
11) The relationship is restored and God's pupose in creating man is fulfilled - The hard way for both.

Hence the command is an event that occured in an historical sequence which makes the control of God and human freewill compatible.