Part 6. Adam, Eve, and Sin
Let us summarize where we are thus far in our analysis. First, our objective is to come to our own conclusions about the Biblical doctrine of Original Sin. What is the text itself telling us about this concept, if anything at all? The focus being sin, we start from our knowledge of sin as disobeying God, or an act of rebellion against God.
- The first act of Sin occurred when the serpent deceived the first woman, leading her to question God and place her own desires above God’s will, and then the first man listening to his wife instead of to God, and then both of them eating of the tree which God had commanded them not to eat from.
- Because of this Original act of Sin, the first man and the first woman were removed from the garden of Eden, each with their own punishment (and the serpent with his own).
- The garden of Eden was a blessing of God on the man and woman and they were able to live rightly with God, but because of this sin, man and woman were removed from the presence of and the gift of his blessing. However, God’s grace and mercy was shown through their keeping of their life.
- Therefore, the Original Sin is what resulted in humanity falling from God’s Glory and presence, a fate from which man was not able to recover from.
This is a rough approach to understanding the nature of Original Sin. The fullness of the doctrine of Original Sin, as it has been traditionally understood then, can clearly not be wholly derived from just the story of the fall of man. However, we can see here why the story of Adam, Eve, and that serpent serves as the starting point for understanding sin itself, as well as what it has done to humanity. This leads us to understand that while many turn to Adam and Eve, and point the finger at them for why we are the way we are, I think there is much that can be identified to show that to be incorrect, and indeed even hypocritical. Remember the number of times that I attempted to point out that both Adam and Eve were honest in their responses to God? As much as we might have all heard at one time or another (or even read in commentaries and the like) that Adam was denying responsibility or that Eve was attempting to do the same, the text does not seem to be implying that at all. Might we be pointing the blame for our own Sin on Adam and Eve, attempting to set upon them our own responsibility for our own wrong doings by saying such things?
We can certainly review the conduct of Adam and Eve in response to God’s questions and from a judgmental position make the claim that they were attempting to shift responsibility from one to the other. However, when we attempt to be objective in our review, we see that both Adam and Eve admit that they did in fact eat of the tree. They both tell the whole truth where one might expect the man to have attempted to deny his wife’s involvement to protect her from death, or Eve attempt to deny having done anything wrong, but neither do such things. Each one answer’s God’s questions truthfully. Remember, they now both have the knowledge of good and evil, yet, they tell the truth, wholly and completely. So, it becomes clear then that just simply acquiring the knowledge of good and evil does not mean you are immediately wicked in all that you do. Here, Adam and Eve show that to be the case.
Now, perhaps it is in Adam’s response “…the woman that You [meaning God] gave to be with me…” (Gen. 3:12 NASB) that we might find the suggestion that he was attempting to point blame to God. However, I challenge that on this point. The woman was indeed given to man by God, also, she had not been given a name yet. So, when Adam calls her “The woman that you gave to be with me,” he is both simply identifying her (considering the first part of God’s question of who) and saying that she is the one that God gave to him. He saw her eat, and she offered it to him, and since she was of God’s work and a gift to Adam from God, what reason would Adam have not to trust what she says to him? Now, please understand, I am attempting to simply take the text at its own words. I am not attempting to make any insinuation against centuries of scholarship on this passage. I am just attempting proper hermeneutics here and not allowing the influence of even scholarly opinion to interfere with what the author is telling me.
But that is enough on that subject. But let us turn for a moment to that pesky question about the serpent that I have been hinting at through this series. No doubt, I am sure that some of my readers might feel a little uncertain about how to answer the question “Was what the serpent said true?” For some of you, maybe it is out of a bit of faithful uncertainty, where we may feel traditionally obligated to say, “The serpent lied!” as our knee-jerk response to the question. For others, you may be more willing to consider it and ponder on the subject. Please know, for my Christian friends who may be young in their faith, you are doing nothing wrong in attempting to answer this question. Don’t let yourself feel conflicted by it, as it is an honest question, and as with all honest questions, it deserves an honest answer. So, let us consider it for a moment.
D. Was what the serpent said true?
How do we know that the serpent deceived Eve? In what manner did he do so? Let’s take a look back at what he said:
…And he said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?” (Gen. 3:1 NASB)
The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gen. 3:4-5 NASB).
The first words of the serpent to the woman, are they deceptive? It does not appear to be so at first glance. However, it is important to note not so much the serpents words, but the direction that the serpent is attempting to take the woman with those words. It is the intent of the serpent that would lead us to conclude deception. First, the serpent is asking the woman if God has said that “You shall not eat from any tree of the garden.” The serpent, in asking this question, could be asking “Is there any tree in the garden that God has said you can not eat from?” To which one might respond, “Why yes, this tree here we can not eat from.”
But given the way it was written, it can only be taken as the serpent asking if the statement, “You shall not eat of any tree in the garden” is true. To which one would respond, “Well no, he said the exact opposite actually, we can eat from any tree in the garden. However, there is one He did say we could not eat from.” Ah, now this adds an interesting element, doesn’t it? What is the natural inclination that we would then have? Does not that response then immediately beg the question, “What is it about this tree that makes it so that we can not eat of it? Will we really die? I mean…come on…its a fruit, right?”
The approach of the serpent is one that is leading Eve into a state of applying that reasoning that was given to her as a part of her nature. He is putting the woman into a position of questioning God’s command. Indeed, this is the very first step toward disobedience. We find ourselves in a position where we are led to wonder, why? If the response here is not, “I must remember God’s word and have faith in his instruction,” then we are being led astray.
Now, God did provide the reason why, which was that the man would die if he did so. Again, this is not a prohibitive command given for the sake of prohibition and authority. God was not attempting to make His claim here, He is The Creator…he need not make any claim, His authority is absolute by default, by His very nature of existence. There would be no such concept as authority without God. It is made clear that God is trying to protect the man from death. Now wait, what was it that the serpent said in response to the woman? He said that they “…surely will not die!” But wait, did they die? Ah, well would you look at that. Perhaps the serpent was not lying after all. However, that is only as it seems to be. Crafty…clever…shrewd.
While it is true that neither the man nor the woman dies immediately after consuming the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they do still die. Thus, is introduced the “half-truth” and the deception. The serpent follows up this statement with his own addition, “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Thus, the serpent earns his stripes as the great tempter.
To the first point, remember, God had planted the tree of life in the garden, and God never prohibited the man from eating of that tree. So, it is reasonable to conclude that God was willing to give man eternal life. The unmerited gift of eternal life with God in the garden where man and woman could share in their unique and loving relationship with their father figure, the creator of the cosmos. An eternal life of God’s blessing, peace, and grace. That from which man falls. That eternal life which man loses due to the first, the Original Sin.
To the second point, the serpent, is now showing what his intention was. He need not say anything more than this in order to arouse the curiosity and the doubting in the woman’s mind. He has already pushed the “start” button on both her pride and her rationality. But wait, remember, we were asking is what the serpent said true? Well, was this true also? That is, “[they] will be like God?”
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever…” (Gen. 3:22 NASB).
Well isn’t that interesting. The serpent does appear to be telling the truth on this part. So, what makes it a deception? The way that the serpent asks the question attempts to place God in the position of someone who is holding something back from the man and woman in a wicked manner. The serpent places a doubt in the mind of the woman, and is implying that God is keeping the man and the woman from gaining knowledge of good and evil squarely because they might become like God, thus putting God in a negative light.
However, we know that this is not the case. God was attempting to protect the man from death. So, we see the serpent is attempting to twist God’s words in order to persuade the woman into acting against God’s will, which is the desire to keep man and woman from the death that would come if they attained the knowledge of good and evil. This is always the first step toward sin. Now, we are not given much evidence to suggest that the woman “took” the serpent’s words in such a manner, as though she knew all these things or what the serpent was trying to do. Regardless, the serpent’s intentions are made clear to us, the reader.
The woman then falls into the temptation, which she could only have done if in her mind she lost trust in God’s word. To provide a contrast, we can look at the example of Jesus in response to the great tempter’s words to Jesus. You can find this in Matthew Chapter 4. To make it simple for our purposes here, Jesus responds to each of the tempter’s temptations with the commands of God, God’s word. This shows Jesus’ complete trust in God, and reliance upon God’s word to control his decisions. I encourage you to read that chapter before continuing on in this article.
You see, instead of reverting in her mind to God’s words, she instead allows her body and her reasoning to give herself excuse to go forward and eat of the fruit. Now, this does not come from an evil intent on her part, after all, she has no idea what evil is! This is the woman using raw rationality. She is rationalizing her decision to go against the will of her Father God. Morality has nothing to do with this act of disobedience, nor is it required! This is perhaps the most important lesson of Original Sin.
How can she know that the serpent has an evil intent when she has not yet eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil!? But instead of keeping God’s command, trusting in his word, as Jesus did, she takes of the tree and eats the fruit. She then gives it to her husband who, evidently, was standing there right next to her the whole time! (one of those moments where you wish you were there to smack Adam upside the head, no?) Adam, clearly having heard the serpent and seen his wife, trusts her action and follows her deed and eats of it too. Thus, they both bare responsibility for their own actions, and sin. God had given them the command to not eat, He even gave them the reason for the command, so they would not die. But that is the issue with immorally guided rationality…it will replace anything with some other thing and reach its conclusion. A purely rational being without moral guidance becomes reactive and internalized. Someone who professes guidance purely on reason can’t be moral…they are attempting to spit the fruit out, so to speak.
Now, wait a minute. What about that whole part about Adam and Eve becoming like God after eating of the fruit that God Himself appears to confirm as true? Number one, do Adam and Eve become like God? Number two, why would he not want them to become like Him, is He hiding something? Whoa…easy now my brothers and sisters in Christ. You have nothing to fear in asking this question. Indeed, this is one of the more drastically challenging questions that an atheist can ask a believer, and many have fallen. But take notice of what is happening here. Feel what is happening to you right now.
The author is presenting to us something which can be taken as placing God in a negative light. Isn’t that interesting? Doesn’t that tell us something of the author of this text? I mean, it’s in the Bible, the source of our very worldview, the book which shows us the love and mercy of God (it doesn’t prove God, it presupposes Him)! How can it be that the author would allow such a powerful challenge to be included in the text? Wouldn’t that be detrimental to the intent of the author? Well, if the intent of the author was to attempt to prove something, perhaps. There are many aspects of the Bible which place the reader in the position to question even the very existence of God! Why on earth, with an author who is attempting to relay something deceptively, or he or she is attempting to show to be true which is untrue, include parts that would bring the audience to question the whole point!? Is that really the actions of a deceptive author, or it is more likely the actions of an author recording what is being revealed to Him as it happens?
So, what does this tell us about the author? What does this tell us about God?
E. What was God’s intent and did Adam and Eve become like God?
Let us consider the second part. The author is clearly conveying something has been revealed to him. Did Adam and Eve really become like God? Well, let’s review God’s words.
Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (Gen. 3:22 NASB).
Well, that is interesting. The One God says that the man has become “Like one of Us.” Whoa, ok, which one? What is the one of which one from one that man has become like?
Hey, easy now, that might send your mind for a spin. Let’s stay focused. So, God acknowledges that man has become like one of him. Well, first off, this does not suggest many gods, but it does suggest that the nature of God is something of a multiplicity that we can’t quite understand today. This was the commonly accepted understanding of the nature of God at the time. The doctrine of the Trinity is something that we can save for another day, so let us set that aside, and just accept that the One God, the LORD God, is saying here that man is not like him fully.
Remember, God made man in His image already, the whole image! Indeed, we see that man has become only like a part of God. So, again, the serpent has made a point that is only partly true. Now as far as which one of the “Us”, again, for another day. To suffice for now, the use of plural in ancient Hebrew was not always to represent physical many but concepts that could only be described as plural because of some unique feature of that concept’s nature. The Hebrew word for “face” is plural, which relates the concept of many faces, but it is talking about only one face… But, this article is focused on Original Sin. There is an answer for that my friend. (Squirrel)
Having gotten through that rocky area, let us now move on to that next point. The great tempter earns his stripes as a deceiver for exactly the reason you are asking the question about why God does not want for man to be like Him. We already know what God’s intent was behind keeping the man from eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He did not desire for the man to die. Remember that? That is made clear in the text and was made clear to the man when God commanded him to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). It is literally that simple.
However, I identified this as its own section in this article for exactly the reason of getting you to feel what Adam and Eve felt. You are now in the story. You now know exactly what happened in the garden of Eden. You are now feeling exactly as they felt IF you in your heart and in your mind questioned the intent of God in the serpent’s words. Amazing how words can make you forget what was just told to you all of one chapter earlier. The power of that temptation is just as real today as it was back then. The power of the corruption of our rationality is just as real today as it was back then. With out the guidance of God’s morality, we will rationalize ourselves into sin, rebellion, and disobedience without end. (Such is one of the many lessons of Genesis from here to the tower of babel).
The answer to this challenge from Atheists is so simple. It is right there in the text. Clearly, God intended for man to come to eternal life. But how could God allow man to attain eternal life when man now knows how to be evil? God now has to allow man to die. But God so loves man. Though life would have to be taken. (so death, it is said, “enters the world.”) Indeed, we have no reason to see Adam as being evil in the immediate aftermath of the fall. What cause then does God have, to take Adam’s life when He has confessed to God his sin, and come into sin not of his own doing, but out of an innocent state? No, God loves his creation, and desires only good for the man. The cosmos, without man, would no longer be “very good.” Yet, the cosmos with man, who now has attained the knowledge of good and evil, would become so wicked that the Lord would come close to wiping out all creation, were it not for one good man and his family. What we learn over, and over again in the Bible, is that love that God has for His beloved creation, knows no bounds.
F. Final Thoughts
What we come to learn about Original Sin from the chapter on The Fall of Man is that it was The Original Sin of Adam and Eve that separated them from the presence of God. Man fell from God’s blessing and presence, and we lost the ability to walk with Him in the garden that God gave to man. Since that time, however, the path back to the garden and to the tree of life has been guarded so that man might be able to find his way back.
Original Sin teaches us the origin of mankind’s troubles. It was sin that set men apart from God, it was sin that kept man from God, and it remains sin to this very day that causes the evil we see in this world so abundantly. It is the rebellion against God that both causes an individual man to sin, and all of his descendants to do the same if that man has power and influence over them. The essence of the doctrine is that sin, disobeying God, doubting Him, rebelling against Him, is the origin of the evil we see in the heart of humanity. It is something that only obedience to God can conquer, and that only God’s salvation can save us from. Evil can only be conquered if first we are able to conquer sin. However, man can’t conquer sin on His own.
When man conquers sin, He is compelled to do what is good. Not for goodness sake, as that can be sin, but because his heart has been brought into right relationship with God. Evil exists in man’s heart in the void left by sin as sin turns man from the presence of God. When man chooses to live in obedience to God, God then fills man with His grace and his blessing for the man’s faith in Him, and that grace and blessing then flows through the man to others, but only so long as man stays faithful to God.
Indeed, man can’t live through life doing good without sinning. However, God’s forgiveness, his mercy and unmerited grace, can forgive us of our sin. There is nothing we can do to earn this. It comes through faith, that is, trusting in God’s word. Adam and Eve did not trust what God said, and it was temptation that led man to question God’s word. Original Sin teaches us that faith in God is the opposite of Sin against God.
We all retain the potential for sin in our nature. Though we are not created in sin, thus requiring some immediate act of salvation to save us from it (sorry there sprinkles..). Instead, we are each responsible for our own sin as we commit it, but we are all equally affected by the sin of others. The sins of our ancestors are responsible for the condition of the world we are in today. Yet, had every man chosen to turn to God and obey Him, it would be a very different world. But it has been demonstrated across our history that this is not possible. These are the lessons of Original Sin.
Original Sin, from Adam and Eve to this very day is responsible for the evil and wickedness that we find in the world. We come to understand that Sin is separate from morality, but morality itself can lead us into greater acts of sin, or it can lead us into greater acts of faith. But it is in the individual thoughts and actions of every man and woman that these things emerge, and it is in the individual hearts of every man and woman that it can be defeated. While the knowledge of good and evil make us like God, it does not make us God.
Our potential for becoming evil has caused death to be necessary, as God can’t allow evil to live eternally if He is to be just. Why has God not done something about evil? Whatever do you mean? Death is the answer to Evil, is it not? But God loves humanity so much, He offers a lifetime for humanity to choose faith and obedience before allowing death to take them for their sin. It is evil in the heart of man the leads man to sin, like the serpent’s wicked act of deception led Adam and Eve to sin. Man has the potential to be evil continually, so death must come so that the evil can be ended. However, man also has the potential to be continually good. So, we have this life to earn our way back to God’s presence. But so long as sin has power over man, even good men will find themselves fall victim to its power. But God sent his Son to die on the cross for every man’s sin, and has opened the path back to the tree of life.
The sin of man caused him to fall from God’s presence, but it is the sacrifice of God’s only son that can bring us back into His presence. When we accept Jesus’ sacrifice as our own, and we confess of our sins against God, and earnestly repent, God sends us the Holy Spirit and the community of believers to guide us back into right relationship with Him. In this way, when the death for our sins come, we can attain to the eternal life with God that He intended from the beginning. It is faith, love, and hope that conquers sin in the individual life of every human. Faith in God, love of God, and Hope in His promise, will cover all sorts of sin, and keep one on a sanctifying path towards eternal life with the Father as He had intended at the start, and is the purpose of this life. The doctrine of Original Sin teaches us all of these truths, thus why it is a doctrine of such great significance. I hope this series has aided you in understanding its concepts, and that you will be blessed through these words.