The Fall of Man

What is the cause (or causes) of sin and the fall of man?

Could any other act of Adam and Eve in their perfect environment in the Garden – other than disobedience to the one divine prohibition – have been a sin and the cause of plunging mankind into sin and death? For example, when Eve either imprecisely restated what Adam told her or added to God’s word or lied or used an idiomatic expression or something else (you decide) by saying “neither shall ye touch it” – was that a sin?

God gave the command to Adam, before he created Eve. “thou” (singular) shalt not eat of it. “thou” shalt surely die. Eve only knew the command of God mediated through Adam. The command to not eat the fruit of the tree was in effect a command to stay away from it. Eve responds to the serpent with “we” and “ye” (plural). Surely this is not disobedience, but recognition that the command to man thereafter applied to man and woman, for they are one.

The serpent did not challenge “neither shall ye touch it” as being a false statement, but challenged the strength of the statement “lest ye die.”

Was Eve deceived into saying “neither shall ye touch it,” or was she deceived into believing the fruit was good and “Ye shall not surely die”? Verse 6 successfully answers that, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof.”

Probably most of the preachers within my range of fellowship might say something like or in the vicinity of “Eve added to God’s word,” but I think they also would draw back from saying that was the cause of the fall. We should carefully think about how we address and explain the fall. The biblical emphasis is plainly focused on Adam’s disobedience.

God gave a divine prohibition to Adam, concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. “thou shalt not eat of it.” “thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17) The fall and the condemnation of sin is because of the disobedience to this prohibition that God placed on man, the command to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When God spoke to Adam after his disobedience, he emphasized the eating of the tree. “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (Genesis 3:11) When he gives the cause, it is again related to the eating of the tree. “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it…” (Genesis 3:17-19) Eve was beguiled; Adam was not (Genesis 3:12-13; 1 Timothy 2:13-14). Without being deceived, Adam disobeyed God and freely took the fruit his wife gave him.

Read Genesis 3.

Sin before the fall?

...the serpent...said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Regarding the text on the fall of man in Genesis 3:1-7, there is something I have considered from time to time for 40 years. An older preacher friend brought it up when I was a young man. In the text, the transgression of Adam and Eve is taking the forbidden fruit (Genesis 3:11). This theological thread runs through the Bible (see, e.g. Romans 5:12; 1 Corinthians. 15:22; 1 Timothy 2:13-14).

If I remember correctly, the preacher asked whether Eve added to God’s word (or lied), in reference to her saying “neither shall ye touch it.” “Neither shall ye touch it” is not included in the restriction of Genesis 3:17 – “of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Did Eve add to what God told Adam (or lie to the serpent). If so, wouldn’t this be a sin. In the end, this preacher sort of downplayed Eve’s claim with a bit of a humourous twist. He said, “Eve was not present when God gave the command to Adam – and that it was probably Adam who told her, saying, ‘Honey, don’t even touch it.’”

Others have suggested that Eve added to (neither shall ye touch it), subtracted from (“We may eat of the fruit of the trees” instead of “mayest freely eat,” and “lest ye die” instead of “shalt surely die”), and modified (“Ye shall not eat of it” instead of “thou shalt not eat of it”) God’s command. If adding to and taking from God’s word is a sin (Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18-19), why was Eve not already in sin before she ever took the fruit?

I am not particularly troubled by this question, but find it somewhat intriguing. It seems a question worthy of legitimate scrutiny.

What are your thoughts? Thanks.

Multiplying Ancestors

Starting with my two parents, I have:

• 4 grandparents
• 8 great grandparents
• 16 second great grandparents
• 32 third great grandparents
• 64 fourth great grandparents
• 128 fifth great grandparents
• 256 sixth great grandparents
• 512 seventh great grandparents
• 1024 eight great grandparents
• 2048 ninth great grandparents
• 4096 tenth great grandparents
• 8192 eleventh great grandparents

(Copied from Find-A-Grave member Mona Hura)

Intriguingly, the multiplication will somewhere stop and funnel back to two first parents, Adam and Eve.

Jesus, the Last Adam

Yesterday driving home I heard on Break Point I heard a commentary by John Stonestreet on Jesus, the Last Adam. I wouldn’t agree with everything he said, but overall I really liked the contrasts he made between the first and last Adams. Here is an excerpt. The entire piece may be read at the link above.

The ways in which Jesus is similar to, and yet better than Adam, are astonishing:

The first Adam yielded to temptation in a garden. The Last Adam beat temptation in a garden. The first man, Adam, sought to become like God. The Last Adam was God who became a man. The first Adam was naked and received clothes. The Last Adam had clothes but was stripped. The first Adam tasted death from a tree. The Last Adam tasted death on a tree. The first Adam hid from the face of God, while the Last Adam begged God not to hide His face. 

The first Adam blamed his bride, while the Last Adam took the blame for His bride. The first Adam earned thorns. The Last Adam wore thorns. The first Adam gained a wife when God opened man’s side, but the Last Adam gained a wife when man opened God’s side. The first Adam brought a curse. The Last Adam became a curse. While the first Adam fell by listening when the Serpent said “take and eat,” the Last Adam told His followers, “take and eat, this is my body.”

Age of Adam

Excerpts from Age of Earth; Age of Adam:

The subject of Adam is without controversy. That is, one does not hear of a “Young Adam Theory versus an Old Adam Theory.”

“Adam and Eve’s exact physical age

at their creation would technically be

zero, because their ages are

calculated from their creation, but

God obviously created them at a

certain AGE LEVEL, or as it is often

called, with APPARENT AGE.” 

Retrieved from: www.libertygospeltracts.com)

[The Earth’s] exact physical age at [its] creation would technically be zero, because [its] age [is] calculated from [its] creation, but God obviously created [it] at a certain AGE LEVEL, or as it is often called, with [an] APPARENT AGE.

Hot topics: Historical Adam

Adam and the Fall, or any Adam at all?
...blog cogitations on the historicity of the first Adam

In modern Christianity, serenely subjugated to science, the historical Adam teeters in the balance and is about to take another fall. Is Adam and the Fall an historical imperative that is foundational to Christian theology? Or was there ever any Adam at all?

Last month I broached the subject with Repackaging the Gospel: Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?. A couple of years ago Christianity Today took up the issue in a lengthy article by Richard Ostling, The Search for the Historical Adam. I think this provides a good overview of the topic.

Anti-Adam
10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam (not)
Does Evolution Cancel Out the Fall of Adam? Depends on Whose Adam You Have in Mind
Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?
Ten Really Bad Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam

Pro-Fall
A biblical and scientific Adam
10 Reasons to Believe in a Historical Adam
The Importance of an Historical Adam
What Depends Upon An Historical Adam?

More than two options
Historical Adam: Embracing the questions

Video
The Importance of the Historical Adam

"As you're reading through Genesis 2 and 3, the author clearly believes that these events happened, because he explains present reality on the basis of what happened. For example, Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife...If the event didn't happen, the explanation for the present reality breaks down." -- Robert B. Chisholm, Jr. speaking of "etiology" in the above video discussion

Repackaging the Gospel: Does Paul’s Christ Require a Historical Adam?

Modern theologians feel the need to repackage the Bible to pacify the proclivities of pretentious people. One day it's the gender issue and another day homosexual marriage. Now it is the gospel, or more specifically, how to repackage the need for the gospel without an historical Adam.

Since prevailing scientific attitudes have dispensed with the existence of a real Adam made in the image of God -- and who fell from that blessed estate -- pandering theologians must follow suit. It's as if the theologian and the scientist are dancing and the scientist is the lead partner. Enter J. R. Daniel Kirk of Fuller Theological Seminary, musing whether Paul’s Christ Requires a Historical Adam? He seems to conclude that “...the gospel does not, in fact, depend on a historical Adam or historical Fall...”

“In short, if there is no historical Adam with whom we are enmeshed in the guilt and power of sin, how can we affirm that in Christ we participate in the justification and freedom of grace?”

“Where, then, are we left, if the pressures of scientific inquiry lead us to take down the spire of a literal, historical Adam?...Might it be possible that we could retell the stories of both Adam and evolutionary sciences such that they continued to reflect our conviction that the endpoint of God’s great story is nothing else than new creation in the crucified and risen Christ? For many, the cognitive dissonance between the sciences and a historical Adam has already become too great to continue holding both...To accompany Paul on the task of telling the story of the beginning in light of Christ, while parting ways with his first-century understanding of science and history, is not to abandon the Christian faith in favor of science.”

J. R. Daniel Kirk's article notwithstanding, this theory attacks the biblical record, questions the inerrancy of the Bible, and compromises man's need for redemption. It seems even to contradict the doctrinal statement of the very institution that employs Kirk, Fuller Theological Seminary:
“IV. God, by his word and for his glory, freely created the world out of nothing. He made man and woman in his own image, as the crown of creation, that they might have fellowship with him. Tempted by Satan, they rebelled against God. Being estranged from their Maker, yet responsible to him, they became subject to divine wrath, inwardly depraved and, apart from grace, incapable of returning to God.”

Let us accompany Paul in continuing to tell the story of the beginning in light of Christ, while parting ways with the likes of Daniel Kirk and their twenty-first-century understanding of science and history. They have abandoned the Christian faith in favor of science. Let God be true, but every man a liar.