# Did Adam know it was evil to eat of the tree?



## earl40 (Sep 10, 2011)

I assume he did not in that I assume (correct me if I am wrong here) the tree imparted the knowledge of good and evil.

Below is an edit.

Of course as Richard pointed out later in this thread the tree did not contain any magical properties. I should have asked..... I assume he did not, in that I assume (correct me if I am wrong here) he became aware of good and evil when he ate the fruit.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Sep 10, 2011)

He certainly knew that God had forbiden him from doing so.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 10, 2011)

Yes.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 10, 2011)

He knew exactly what it says in Genesis 2:17, that it was good for him to not eat of the tree. *He had no knowledge of evil* only good, since after the fall Genesis 3:22 says, "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."

When the devil tempts Eve, he wasn't lying when he said, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."


----------



## NB3K (Sep 10, 2011)

_Moved to: "TheWading Pool"._


----------



## earl40 (Sep 10, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> He knew exactly what it says in Genesis 2:17, that it was good for him to not eat of the tree. *He had no knowledge of evil* only good, since after the fall Genesis 3:22 says, "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."
> 
> When the devil tempts Eve, he wasn't lying when he said, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."



So you would answer yes and no?

---------- Post added at 04:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:49 PM ----------




NB3K said:


> Here is a question in relation to the first question: was there evil before the fall? I mean, before Adam fell, Satan did exsist already right? Now God did say that all His creation was "very good" but in what respect was Satan in relationship to the goodness of His creation? Was not Satan evil before Adam fell? Or was only the things which were in plain sight considered "very good"?



Now that is a good question based on good and necessarily inference derived from scripture. As was my inference that Adam did not know good or evil before he ate. For even The Lord says "has become" in reference to a change in the content of what they now know (good and evil).


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 10, 2011)

earl40 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > He knew exactly what it says in Genesis 2:17, that it was good for him to not eat of the tree. *He had no knowledge of evil* only good, since after the fall Genesis 3:22 says, "Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."
> ...



No, I am answering 'No'. He had no knowledge of evil before the fall, until he the fall of man in Gen. 3:1-6. Before the fall he knew only good, that it was good to eat of all the trees, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil it was good not to eat. 

In Gn. 3:22, the Lord reveals to us that because Adam ate of the forbidden fruit, he now is like God (as Satan stated) knowing not just good, but now also evil.

The question was, did Adam know the tree (of the knowledge of good and evil) was evil? 1) the tree wasn't evil, neither was the fruit; 2) Adam knew that it was good to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So once again, No, Adam did not know it was evil, rather he knew it was good to not eat.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 10, 2011)

earl40 said:


> I assume he did not in that I assume (correct me if I am wrong here) the tree imparted the knowledge of good and evil.



This question has been addressed before by me. And our Brother, Richard Tallach, gave me the following explanation which I found very satisfactory. (The odd thing is that you've commented on that thread back then and wondered the same question that you're now pondering on.)



> Adam had no personal or subjective experience of evil (i.e. moral evil) before he fell. And he had no personal or subjective experience of the contrast between doing good and doing evil before he fell.
> 
> What about God then, because we read:
> 
> ...



So, yes, Adam was fully aware eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was wrong. The tree was called a tree of "knowledge of good and evil" because eating of it was the only thing forbidden to Adam and thus the only way of experiencing the contrast of good and evil. There was, then, nothing special in the tree itself. The tree didn't impart knowledge of good and evil, it was the act of sinning against God that opened the eyes of Adam to see what evil virtually is.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 10, 2011)

In a real sense - although, or rather because, Adam and Eve had no _subjective_ knowledge of evil - they being perfectly holy would have viewed with the greater horror and revulsion, from an _objective_ standpoint, the committing of evil i.e. their expressing enmity towards their Father and God and eating from the Tree.

The Fall was the most deliberate and wicked act ever, apart from the Crucifixion of Christ.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 10, 2011)

Everything adam and eve did prior to the fall they did thinking it was good. Hence they were deceived.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 10, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Hence they were deceived.



Actually, 1 Tim. 2:14 states that while Eve was deceived Adam was not - which seems to suggest that he really knew better and still went along with it - which seems to be in line with his special culpability in Rom. 5:12.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 10, 2011)

I would say the culpability comes from Adam being the federal head but the progress of influence came through deception of which Eve was the initial and main point of contact. Genesis says nothing of any evil motive in either of them but repeatedly mentions the good they saw in the act of eating.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 10, 2011)

> I would say the culpability comes from Adam being the federal head but the progress of influence came through deception of which Eve was the initial and main point of contact. Genesis says nothing of any evil motive in either of them but repeatedly mentions the good they saw in the act of eating.



Yes, but if they believed that it was good to eat the fruit, they were despising God's Word and God, which would be the evil motive of withdrawing their love from God and expressing enmity towards Him.

We're talking about something more complex and mysterious: how a perfectly holy man who is yet capable of sinning can fall into sin.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 10, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I assume he did not in that I assume (correct me if I am wrong here) the tree imparted the knowledge of good and evil.
> ...



Brother Tallach also wrote...."When we partake of Christ and Him Crucified by faith we receive life (The Tree of Life) and we receive a new knowledge of good and evil (The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)."
This may be true though probably not, I can say the tree imparted knowledge of good to Adam after he ate of the fruit even before The Lord clothed Him with His righteousness. I suspect fallen man can know that what is good but He refuses to believe in Jesus which is the only true way to please God.

Another thought on the culpability angle....I do believe man can sin and not know he is doing so.

---------- Post added at 11:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 PM ----------




Peairtach said:


> > I would say the culpability comes from Adam being the federal head but the progress of influence came through deception of which Eve was the initial and main point of contact. Genesis says nothing of any evil motive in either of them but repeatedly mentions the good they saw in the act of eating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It could be that God used secondary causes, Satan and Adam, to bring about something that will reflect His glory to His creation with more clarity. Well that is how I currently view the why but the how is indeed mysterious. I have some theories along the line of Augustinian thought but have been shut down because of the charge of the RC view of donum superadditum. Though I do believe this was not the case.

---------- Post added at 11:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:08 PM ----------




steadfast7 said:


> Everything adam and eve did prior to the fall they did thinking it was good. Hence they were deceived.



Scripture also says the tree's fruit was indeed good. I have little doubt this touches on the subject of God's decretive will and His prescriptive will and how "all things work for good to those that love God".


----------



## Pergamum (Sep 11, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Everything adam and eve did prior to the fall they did thinking it was good. Hence they were deceived.




Everything Adam and Eve did prior to the Fall they did thinking it was good...but what about the Fall itself? It would appear that Adam sinned willingly and with a clear mind and was not merely a haples victim of Satan but a rebel against God who chose to side with the sins of his wife rather than obey a previously given command of God.

---------- Post added at 04:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 AM ----------




Peairtach said:


> > I would say the culpability comes from Adam being the federal head but the progress of influence came through deception of which Eve was the initial and main point of contact. Genesis says nothing of any evil motive in either of them but repeatedly mentions the good they saw in the act of eating.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My thoughts are that Adam was sinning even as he reached out towards the fruit, since his will had caused his body to take an evil action. 


James 1:



> 13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
> 
> 14But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
> 
> 15Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.


 
What I don't understand is why, if lust is already sin, that James 1 and the patience of God, waited until that lust actually brought forth sin before it was judged, whereas if we lust in our heart for a woman, we need not wait until this lust brings forth a physical act of adultery before this is sin. 

It would have appeared just for God to have judged Adam even as his arm was outstretched, and, even BEFORE he outstretched his hand, as soon as the lust was in his mind for the forbidden fruit.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Sep 11, 2011)

Adam did not KNOW evil. Intimately, until after the fall.

He knew OF evil maybe. Just like many atheists know of God. Yet Adam didn't KNOW evil until he experienced it for himself.

Did he know of evil? I would say it's clear because God forbid him to do so, God told him what was good and what was not. He told Adam what would bring life and what would bring death.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 11, 2011)

earl40 said:


> I do believe man can sin and not know he is doing so.



That is true about sinners, but not Adam. Sinners can be _blinded/deceived_ by the sin that _already_ exists in their hearts, so that they can even believe that they do a favor to the one true God by killing certain people (John 16:2). But Adam had no sin prior to the Fall that would have _blinded/deceived_ him. Adam's conscience was totally conformed to the law of God, and thus it was greatly violated when Adam broke the law of God. And a greatly violated conscience always bears a great burden on man's heart--so it was with Adam, he was _ashamed_ beyond measure and he _hid_ himself from God _knowing he had angered God_ by violating His law.

But we need not speculate about these things, because the Word of God clearly shows us what the case was with Adam. As Brother Phil already pointed out, "1 Tim. 2:14 states that while Eve was deceived Adam was not." That is what Scripture say, and our opinion has no authority in the matter.


----------



## steadfast7 (Sep 11, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> As Brother Phil already pointed out, "1 Tim. 2:14 states that while Eve was deceived Adam was not." That is what Scripture say, and our opinion has no authority in the matter.


 Let's look at 1 Tim 2 carefully:


> 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 *and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.*


 If you are going to absolve Adam of being deceived, then you must also absolve him of being a transgressor from this text; because, it might seem that Paul is saying that only Eve was deceived and only Eve transgressed. Paul is NOT saying that Adam is not a transgressor; Romans 5 is pretty clear that Adam IS a transgressor - nay ... THE transgressor. In context of forbidding women in the office of authoritative teacher in the church, he is prescribing that they ought not teach _and lead_, because her "leadership" in her initial interchange with the serpent led to disastrous results. I think this reading of Paul must take into account the issue of women exercising leadership and teaching in the church. In summary, all Paul saying is that Eve was created SECOND, but was the FIRST to be deceived and the FIRST to transgress - thus it is clear that it is not woman's place to lead or teach a man.


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 11, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe man can sin and not know he is doing so.
> ...



I must correct myself: Adam could be blinded/deceived by means other than sin, because Eve _was_ blinded/deceived by Satan.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 11, 2011)

I don't think that we should lessen Adam and Eve's sin just because it's difficult to understand how one thing led to another within their holy wills, emotions and intellects. One way of trying to get round such mysteries might be to try to lessen their understanding of what they were doing.

Even from a natural and intellectual point of view, it is likely they were much cleverer and au fait than we are, but for the fact that they had not known what it was to sin.

I.e. should we speak of them as being in some way naive, or not doing what they did with their eyes wide open? I'm open to being corrected. 

Don't many of the Reformed commentators emphasise the peculiar heinousness of our primal sin?

As it is in some way our sin, if we appreciate it's heinousness, it is a salutory lesson in our own wickedness, even although we have never done something so heinous by actual transgression.

The essence of obedience to God is love towards God:



> And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (Matt 22:35-40, ESV)



Any disobedience is negatively an expression of our withdrawal of our due love to God, and positively an expression of our enmity towards God.

Adam, being the father of us all, we were in such a particular relationship to him that God was able to test our free love of God in him by entering into the CoW with us in him.

Adam declared a wicked, deliberate and heinous enmity towards God in eating of the Tree, against many tokens of the love of the Triune God, and so did we in a mysterious but true sense.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 13, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> I don't think that we should lessen Adam and Eve's sin just because it's difficult to understand how one thing led to another within their holy wills, emotions and intellects. One way of trying to get round such mysteries might be to try to lessen their understanding of what they were doing.
> 
> Even from a natural and intellectual point of view, it is likely they were much cleverer and au fait than we are, but for the fact that they had not known what it was to sin.
> 
> I.e. should we speak of them as being in some way naive, or not doing what they did with their eyes wide open? I'm open to being corrected.



What I find interesting is that we (post fall man) can not get our mind around the reality that God would punish a man for doing something that he did not know was a sin. This is exactly why I posed this question. Adam In my most humble opinion did not know evil, or good, until he ate the fruit of the tree. Now I believe this does indeed show us The Lord's holy charater in that even the sin commited in ignorance will be punished. How we can say Adam knew it was evil do what he did even though God told Him not to eat is something of a mystery in that here we have God imparting knowledge, or commands on a person who did not know if he violated such would be evil.

Can we not say that lacking knowledge of good and evil does not preclude God creating something very good that does indeed lack such qualities?

I am here standing to be corrected.

---------- Post added at 06:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:54 AM ----------




steadfast7 said:


> Everything adam and eve did prior to the fall they did thinking it was good. Hence they were deceived.



Of couse this goes both ways in that the tree contained the knowledge of evil and good.


----------



## black_rose (Sep 13, 2011)

I haven't read every comment here, but I did read most, and I feel that there is something else about this that should be discussed..
Almost all of you keep saying over and over again "prior to the fall" and "after the fall", but when exactly was the fall? Was it when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit? Or was it the moment they allowed the _thought_ of eating the fruit to slip into their minds?
As it is mentioned other places in the Bible, it is not sin to be tempted (since Jesus was tempted), but it _is_ sin to give thought _to _that temptation.
I really think that in order to properly answer the question of "Did Adam know it was evil to eat of the fruit of that one forbidden tree?" one must consider the answer to that question first and foremost.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong; I know I am far from perfect in my knowledge of such things.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 13, 2011)

There's some kind of equivocation going on in the thread, respecting what it means to "know" something.

Adam lacked "experimental" knowledge of evil. But it does not follow that thereby he knew nothing about evil, that "evil" was some kind of "null-set" in his head.

God lacks "experimental" knowledge of evil. Does anyone think that God didn't know all he needed to know about evil, before even the angels (now demons) fell?

There were two "uses" of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. One was a negative use: the _not eating_ of the tree in obedience to God's command. By means of this use, Adam's own finite and limited knowledge would have ever more (in increasing measure) approximated the kind of non-experimental, divine knowledge of evil.

On the other hand, a positive use of the tree, in contradiction to God's prescriptive will, would bring the kind of experimental knowledge of evil which is completely contrary to God's ways. We would know evil in such a way as puts us eternally at odds with God. It destroyed the very "knowledge of God" in us. We are not able to pay the price necessary to remediate the demerit, and restore the mind and image of God in us.

In such a case, we now know what unimaginable effort it would take to ever bring us back again to a state in which we could be restored to "true knowledge," righteousness, and holiness. A sacrifice beyond all comprehension--certainly beyond all reasonable hope.


"My Song Is Love Unknown."

My song is love unknown,
My Savior’s love to me;
Love to the loveless shown,
That they might lovely be.
O who am I, that for my sake
My Lord should take, frail flesh and die?

He came from His blest throne
Salvation to bestow;
But men made strange, and none
The longed for Christ would know:
But O! my Friend, my Friend indeed,
Who at my need His life did spend.

Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;
Resounding all the day
Hosannas to their King:
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
And for His death they thirst and cry.

Why, what hath my Lord done?
What makes this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight,
Sweet injuries! Yet they at these
Themselves displease, and ’gainst Him rise.

They rise and needs will have
My dear Lord made away;
A murderer they saved,
The Prince of life they slay,
Yet cheerful He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free.

In life, no house, no home
My Lord on earth might have;
In death no friendly tomb
But what a stranger gave.
What may I say? Heav’n was His home;
But mine the tomb wherein He lay.

Here might I stay and sing,
No story so divine;
Never was love, dear King!
Never was grief like Thine.
This is my Friend, in Whose sweet praise
I all my days could gladly spend.

Words: Samuel Crossman, _The Young Man's Meditation,_ 1644


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Sep 13, 2011)

Good thoughts, Bruce. This is similar to where I would have gone with the discussion....experimental knowledge of sin. God knows what sin is, yet does not have knowledge of it in terms of having done it. This is how God knows good and evil, yet, His knowledge has nothing to do with experience, but rather, awareness.

I would argue that Adam knew it would be wrong to not follow the will of God, as He was given a consequence if he were to take certain actions with the fruit. I do not think it matters whether he felt that taking the fruit in and of itself was something sinful; rather, to disobey the will of God is sinful. There is no sin in my going to play golf. There is if I deceive my employer or wife and do it. However, the sin was not in the action of golf, but in the decision to do the golfing, and to deceive others. The swings (and poor shots, thereof) are a consequence and necessary inference of the sin.

---------- Post added at 10:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 AM ----------

So, was there a lack of the knowledge of GOOD before the fall, as well, and this made man capable of knowing what was good as well, in that good is compared to evil? Before, everything was just "upright", or normal; afterwards, there was a measuring stick to measure action by?


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 13, 2011)

The choice of eating, rather than something else, as the test by God, was not arbitrary but most appropriate.

The purposes of eating - in human life generally and in Scripture - are the promotion of life, for pleasure and for fellowship with others.

Adam knew that if he ate of the Tree he would be promoting his death and the death of the millions of his offspring; that he would be taking pleasure in iniquity; and that he would be having fellowship with the Serpent i.e. the Devil.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 13, 2011)

black_rose said:


> I haven't read every comment here, but I did read most, and I feel that there is something else about this that should be discussed..
> Almost all of you keep saying over and over again "prior to the fall" and "after the fall", but when exactly was the fall? Was it when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit? Or was it the moment they allowed the _thought_ of eating the fruit to slip into their minds?
> As it is mentioned other places in the Bible, it is not sin to be tempted (since Jesus was tempted), but it _is_ sin to give thought _to _that temptation.
> I really think that in order to properly answer the question of "Did Adam know it was evil to eat of the fruit of that one forbidden tree?" one must consider the answer to that question first and foremost.
> ...



The fall happened when Adam ate and not a moment before In my most humble opinion. Now He was tempted from without, by Satan (via Eve), and in so far as inner temptation I do not think he was tempted from there because if so the fall would have been at that moment before he ate. Jesus also was tempted from without and did not "feel the pull" of inner temptation. The sermon on the mount teaches us that to even think thoughts of sinful actions is indeed sin and Jesus was not able to to do such being both God and man.

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------




Contra_Mundum said:


> There's some kind of equivocation going on in the thread, respecting what it means to "know" something.
> 
> Adam lacked "experimental" knowledge of evil. But it does not follow that thereby he knew nothing about evil, that "evil" was some kind of "null-set" in his head.
> 
> ...



Bruce is it possible God created man without ANY knowledge of evil, in a "null set" kind of way?

---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------




Peairtach said:


> The choice of eating, rather than something else, as the test by God, was not arbitrary but most appropriate.
> 
> The purposes of eating - in human life generally and in Scripture - are the promotion of life, for pleasure and for fellowship with others.
> 
> Adam knew that if he ate of the Tree he would be promoting his death and the death of the millions of his offspring; that he would be taking pleasure in iniquity; and that he would be having fellowship with the Serpent i.e. the Devil.



So, playing devils advocate here, Adam had knowledge of evil before he ate. So should we reclassify what the tree really contained?...Once again Richard no rancor here just a honest question. 

Maybe just maybe, Adam knew he should not eat, but in doing so I suspect he did not know it was evil. In other words, Adam did know he would die and even that knowledge was not even considered as being bad or evil. I wonder if this ties into a quote Calvin said "reprobation like election is not based on works".


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 13, 2011)

> So, playing devils advocate here, Adam had knowledge of evil before he ate. So should we reclassify what the tree really contained?...Once again Richard no rancor here just a honest question.



The Tree didn't contain anything. It might have been an orange tree, a banana tree, an apple tree, a cherry tree, almond tree (cf. Ex 25:33), pomegranate tree (cf. Ex. 28:34), or some tree that is now extinct. We might be eating the fruit of the Tree - for all we know - today on a regular basis.

It wasn't a magical tree. It was the Word and Promise of God, and the action of the Spirit of God, in connection with the Tree that made the difference. Same as with the Lord's Supper today.



> Maybe just maybe, Adam knew he should not eat, but in doing so I suspect he did not know it was evil.



I'm sure all commentators worth their salt make a distinction between an objective knowledge of sin and a subjective knowledge of sin in respect of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam knew what sin was objectively but not subjectively. He knew that it would be sin for him to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.



> In other words, Adam did know he would die and even that knowledge was not even considered as being bad or evil.



There are two types of "evil" as well. Moral evil i.e. sin; and natural evil(s) e.g. death, disease, pain, which flow logically, and many would say chronologically, from the Fall.

The "knowledge" in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is a subjective knowledge of moral evil i.e. sin. This would also lead to a new subjective understanding of moral good as well.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 13, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> The Tree didn't contain anything. It might have been an orange tree, a banana tree, an apple tree, a cherry tree, almond tree (cf. Ex 25:33), pomegranate tree (cf. Ex. 28:34), or some tree that is now extinct. We might be eating the fruit of the Tree - for all we know - today on a regular basis.
> 
> It wasn't a magical tree. It was the Word and Promise of God, and the action of the Spirit of God, in connection with the Tree that made the difference. Same as with the Lord's Supper today.



I agree that the tree was not magical. All I know is that Adam did not know what evil or good until after he ate. For The Lord say "man has become" and this says explicitly that man gained knowledge he lacked. We can say Adam did indeed gain a subjective knowledge of sin. Now if man knew evil objectively before the fall we may have to assume he had a conscience before he ate, which Jesus says would cause an internal compulsion to eat with Eve. In other words, Adam sinned before he ate of the tree which assumes a couple of things. #1 Mans fall happened before he ate. #2 Man was created with compulsions or a sinful nature. I know neither of us believe such, but this is the logical conclusion if man truly knew evil before he ate which scripture explicitly says did not happen until after Adam ate. 

One other random thought and how this ties into Our Lord Jesus. Jesus is the second Adam who was qualitatively different than the first Adam. Jesus (in His humanity) did indeed have the objective knowledge but not the subjective experience of evil. Adam In my most humble opinion did not have the objective knowledge of evil for The Lord says "man is now like us" and this of course would only include the objective, for The Lord has no subjective experience of evil.

As pointed out earlier God had the objective knowledge of evil and not the subjective knowledge and God says man has become like us. So this obviously is speaking in the objective sense as it relates to "become like us". Though I agree Adam did also experience the subjective.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 14, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Adam lacked "experimental" knowledge of evil. But it does not follow that thereby he knew nothing about evil, that "evil" was some kind of "null-set" in his head.
> 
> God lacks "experimental" knowledge of evil. Does anyone think that God didn't know all he needed to know about evil, before even the angels (now demons) fell?



In what sense does God mean when He said "Man has become like us" if God lacks experimental knowledge of evil?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist (Sep 14, 2011)

I think it is safe to say that since God is all-knowing, He knows what it feels like to be a sinner, what it feels like to have committed evil, though He haven't attained that knowledge through _experience_.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 14, 2011)

Earl, you may find some help in pondering these words that T.E. Wilder posted on the board a long time ago, in a thread that was quite unrelated to your question. 



> Because God created man in the world, for man to be true to his nature and thrive in the world, he needs to obey God's law. Breaking the law brings him into friction with both himself and the outer world.
> 
> (...)
> 
> ...



Some people have taken God's remark about the man having "become as one of us" to be ironical.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Sep 14, 2011)

InSlaveryToChrist said:


> I think it is safe to say that since God is all-knowing, He knows what it feels like to be a sinner, what it feels like to have committed evil, though He haven't attained that knowledge through _experience_.



good thoughts. His knowledge is thorough, yet not necessarily by experience. His knowledge is the basis of all His decrees, and His decrees are the basis of all existence; thus, all in existence is known by Him in terms of His knowledge, even when those things are not experienced directly by Him.

right?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 14, 2011)

I have a hard time believing that this is a seriously posed question. Clearly Adam knew that it was evil to eat of the tree.

God told man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest he die. Eve certainly understood that it was verboten. God would not have given man such a prohibition without man knowing something of the horror of this thing called death. Some have conjectured that Adam, who was with Eve during her colloquy with the serpent, was especially wicked in permitting her to eat to see what consequences would ensue, to see whether the death threatened by the Lord, and denied by the serpent, would materialize or not. All of this was rankest rebellion on Adam's part. Eve was deceived; he was not.

Remember Adam was without sin before the Fall. And his entire knowledge and experience of God was only positive. He knew God to be great, good, and wise. He had no reason to question God. And he knew God without the barrier of any guilt: God walked with Adam in the Garden in the cool of the day. And then this odd, talking creature suggests that this loving and caring Father is not to be believed and trusted. Do you not think that Adam understood that this challenge of God was horribly wrong and that God had specifically said not to do this thing? Adam should only have believed God, crying out to God to deliver him from this treacherous creature. 

Man does come to know evil in a way that he had not. He knew that there was such a thing--he had to for the prohibition to make any sense--but know he comes to know evil experimentally and he comes to know it not from God's perspective but the devil's. The temptation to be like God is telling: man was already like God in the way that God intended him to be like him (in likeness and image). Now he wants to determine right and wrong like God. He wants to do, in a measure, what the devil had done earlier, be a law unto himself. God's reply ("like one of us"), I believe, is ironic, as in "how's that working for you?" I am tentative on this last matter.

There's so much more to say about this crucial passage, and there is certainly room for exegetical difference, but it is quite farfetched to seek to exculpate Adam of this horrible sin, the root of all sin in the human race, leading to the cross. The hand that reached for the forbidden fruit is of a piece with the hand that drove the nails into our Savior. Adam, with the illicit grasp of unbelief, took that which did not rightly belong to him; our Savior, though it was not robbery for Him to be equal with God, with ungrasping hand, gave up his heavenly glory to save us. We took with wicked hands, as with the forbidden fruit, and put to death the Lord of glory. We must not play around with the utterly deadly seriousness of Adam eating the forbidden fruit and the monstrous evil involved in that horrific act of rebellion.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## earl40 (Sep 14, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Earl, you may find some help in pondering these words that T.E. Wilder posted on the board a long time ago, in a thread that was quite unrelated to your question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I will ponder a while. Thanks Ruben.

As a side note I have read that the tree has been refereed to as "the tree of conscience" which I assume would point to the possible inference that Adam did not know to eat of the tree was wrong....objectively, even though God told him not to do so. Call me a idiot but I do believe this is a possibility though this may rum amok against the WCF Q.17 on how man was made . In other words, man can sin and not know he is sinning. Now that is one a tough standard. Of course The Lord can do what ever he wants with the clay which includes commanding what He knows will be broken in ignorance.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:19 PM ----------




Alan D. Strange said:


> I have a hard time believing that this is a seriously posed question. Clearly Adam knew that it was evil to eat of the tree.
> 
> God told man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil lest he die. Eve certainly understood that it was verboten. God would not have given man such a prohibition without man knowing something of the horror of this thing called death. Some have conjectured that Adam, who was with Eve during her colloquy with the serpent, was especially wicked in permitting her to eat to see what consequences would ensue, to see whether the death threatened by the Lord, and denied by the serpent, would materialize or not. All of this was rankest rebellion on Adam's part. Eve was deceived; he was not.
> 
> ...



So was the internal compulsion to grab and eat sin? If so did the fall happen then? Yes, this is a serious question?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 14, 2011)

Earl:

I am not sure what you mean by "the internal compulsion to grab and eat." I am not sure that that accurately describes the dynamic of sin here.

If you mean by that, "did Adam in some way sin before his hand actually touched the fruit or he bit into it with his mouth?"--unequivocally, yes.

Sin, James 1 and numerous other passages would indicate, germinates inwardly before manifesting itself outwardly. So, in response to the temptation and what Eve was doing (and/or had done), Adam, who was the federal (representative) head, inwardly decided to eat it before he did so outwardly. "Eating the forbidden fruit" describes a complex act that would include the sinful inner decisions, as well as the sinful outer actions, involved in original sin.

I would, in fact, place the beginning of the sin, that culminated in eating, with Adam placing himself as judge between God and the devil. His duty was to obey. He was perfect. God was lovely. The serpent was creepy. But when he assayed to act as judge between the Lord's command and threat ("you shall die") and Satan's lie ("you shall not die"), he sinned and made such sin manifest by eating the fruit. Eating the fruit is a complex event, as is any sin, involving sins of thoughts, words, and deeds. Note I am not saying that it is sin to be tempted. It is not. But it is sin not to resist such and as soon as he begin entertaining it, he was not resisting and was sinning.

And he did this, brother--imagine!--as a sinless being! So this was not the temptation to him, in one sense, that it is to us who are fallen. For him to give in to this temptation in a sinless state is unspeakably wicked. How he could even do so as a sinless creature is something that we cannot comprehend. The mystery involved with this iniquity is something that has plagued theologians from the beginning. Augustine and all the rest have acknowledged that we do not know where sin came from in Adam--why he gave in--but give in he did, and thus gave birth to sin in the race.

Thanks be to God that the last Adam has rescued us: For as in Adam all died; even so, in Christ shall all be made alive.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak (Sep 14, 2011)

earl40 said:


> As a side note I have read that the tree has been refereed to as "the tree of conscience" which I assume would point to the possible inference that Adam did not know to eat of the tree was wrong....objectively, even though God told him not to do so. Call me a idiot but I do believe this is a possibility though this may rum amok against the WCF Q.17 on how man was made . In other words, man can sin and not know he is sinning. Now that is one a tough standard. Of course The Lord can do what ever he wants with the clay which includes commanding what He knows will be broken in ignorance.



Earl, if that's all you have to go on I think you can dismiss the "problem" out of hand. *If* someone referred to the tree in question as "the tree of conscience", and *if* by that they meant to indicate that "evil" was a concept that left Adam scratching his head (neither of which have been shown), you would still be left with one person's speculation: a speculation that isn't required by the language of the text, and in fact is militated against by the circumstances of the text. I have to admit I don't see any motivation to make or listen to such a speculation. Even taking "knowing" as "determining" would seem less far-fetched to me.
The Lord's power over the clay, of course, is by no means in question; but it is not out of a desire to excuse the probation God gave man, but because of the text and the reading of the text within the Christian tradition that I am left scratching my head over your question.


----------



## earl40 (Sep 14, 2011)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > As a side note I have read that the tree has been refereed to as "the tree of conscience" which I assume would point to the possible inference that Adam did not know to eat of the tree was wrong....objectively, even though God told him not to do so. Call me a idiot but I do believe this is a possibility though this may rum amok against the WCF Q.17 on how man was made . In other words, man can sin and not know he is sinning. Now that is one a tough standard. Of course The Lord can do what ever he wants with the clay which includes commanding what He knows will be broken in ignorance.
> ...



No need to scratch. My question only has the presupposition that Adam did not know good or evil before he ate of the tree. Most here say he did already know both good and evil objectively before he ate and did not know good and evil subjectively till after he ate. Once again scripture says something happened after he ate and I assume he gained a quality of something (knowledge) that was absent before they sinned. Also so far as God being ironic that is interesting, but if not this is indeed a statement of fact by God which says they NOW know good and evil after they ate of the tree which is far from ironic.


----------



## moral necessity (Sep 14, 2011)

earl40 said:


> So was the internal compulsion to grab and eat sin? If so did the fall happen then? Yes, this is a serious question?



Earl, I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I thought it fit someway into what you were searching for, at least with this question. Blessings!

"And the same is true of Adam's evil inclination. This, also, was the result of self-determination, not of a volition. Adam, in the act of apostasy, did not make a choice between two contraries, God and the creature, to neither of which was he yet inclined ; but he passed or " lapsed " from one inclination to another; from one self-determination to another. This instant, he is wholly inclined to good ; the next instant, he is wholly inclined to evil. Such a, fall of the will, cannot be accounted for by an antecedent choice from an indifferent state of the will. It is explained by the possibilitas peccandi. This is the power of self-determining to evil, implied in the mutable holiness of a creature who is not self-sustaining and onmipotent. When God created Adam's will with a holy inclination, this inclination, because finite was not immutable. Mutable Adam, unlike his immutable Maker, could lose holiness. He was able to persevere in his holy self-determination, and he was able to start a sinful self-determination. God left it to Adam himself to decide whether he would continue in his first created inclination, or would begin a second evil inclination. This was his probation. The first sin was the self-determining of the will to evil, which expelled the existing self-determination to good, and not a volition in a state of indifference. It was self-determination to an ultimate end, not a choice of means to an ultimate end. Sinful inclination began in Adam immediately by self-determination, and not mediately by a foregoing volition. He did not choose to incline to evil, but he inclined." (Shedd Vol.II p.135-6)


----------



## a mere housewife (Sep 14, 2011)

Earl, surely you don't mean that Adam did not know good subjectively before he ate of the tree? For he walked with God in the garden. And in knowing God, he would have known the heinousness of sin against Him, as we only really understand aright how evil sin is as we draw near to our Holy God. I would think he had a more perfect understanding of evil in that state than when his mind was blinded by sin and he _hid_ from God; for one of the things evil does to us is to make us lunatics, who know nothing as we ought to know it. He knew evil after the fall in that he experienced this utter derangement of all his faculties, including his mind. Before the fall he had communion with God, a conscience to witness to the word of God, a mind that was not deranged by sin. Scripture states that he was not deceived. He chose to trust the Serpent's word over God's -- that is 'knowledge of evil' for sure, but the sort Christ had to come to deliver us from, because once knowing evil in that way, we can never make our way back (being so blinded and darkened and utterly foolish) to the knowledge of good. Surely you aren't suggesting that with a darkened understanding, Adam was more like God?

edit: Earl, I don't mean to take it upon myself to argue -- I think there are some really fine answers in this thread -- just reading through I found it somewhat appalling to think that you might be suggesting that Adam was really more enlightened after sinning against God, and contracting a darkened and foolish mind, than when he walked uprightly with God in the garden. Apparently in that state he was undiscerning and even something of a natural fool (like the young man lacking sense in Proverbs): that seems backwards. E even more appalling is the suggestion that he was more like God after having rebelled against Him and corrupted every faculty. So I hoped I was misunderstanding!


----------



## py3ak (Sep 14, 2011)

earl40 said:


> No need to scratch. My question only has the presupposition that Adam did not know good or evil before he ate of the tree. Most here say he did already know both good and evil objectively before he ate and did not know good and evil subjectively till after he ate. Once again scripture says something happened after he ate and I assume he gained a quality of something (knowledge) that was absent before they sinned. Also so far as God being ironic that is interesting, but if not this is indeed a statement of fact by God which says they NOW know good and evil after they ate of the tree which is far from ironic.



Yes, but look again at your own statement. You have a presupposition: a presupposition which is simply inconsistent with Scripture, the Westminster standards, and the Christian tradition. Adam was not a blank slate before the fall.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Sep 14, 2011)

Thanks, Charles P., for the great Shedd quote. It is quite apropos to the discussion and I think that Shedd is spot on.

There was no prior wicked disposition, given Adam's native sinlessness, but he was able to sin, and sin he did, which consisted of all that sin consists of, except immediately brought forth, unlike us, who, as fallen, are inclined to it. As I've been saying, that makes it all that much more heinous.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 15, 2011)

Adam and Eve were possibly the cleverest and most _au fait_, human beings ever to walk the Earth. Physically, mentally, spiritually and morally in "tip-top" condition.

We shouldn't think from the simplicity of the narrative, or from the fact that they were wearing no clothes and they hadn't started building the Godly civilisation they had been tasked to do, that they were naive or primitive in any sense. If they hadn't sinned how quickly and beautifully would the City of God have been built!

We shouldn't be fooled by the nature of the sin, "merely" eating a fruit in disobedience against God's word, that this was a pecadillo.

The more we contemplate the wickedness of the original sin in turning from love to our good God and Father, to enmity towards Him, which is what is happening here, the more we will appreciate our own wickedness, because in a real yet mysterious sense Adam's sin is our own and His enmity towards God expressed in disobedience is behind all our sin.



> And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, "Which commandment is the most important of all?" Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' (Mark 12:28-30, ESV)


----------



## earl40 (Sep 15, 2011)

py3ak said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> > No need to scratch. My question only has the presupposition that Adam did not know good or evil before he ate of the tree. Most here say he did already know both good and evil objectively before he ate and did not know good and evil subjectively till after he ate. Once again scripture says something happened after he ate and I assume he gained a quality of something (knowledge) that was absent before they sinned. Also so far as God being ironic that is interesting, but if not this is indeed a statement of fact by God which says they NOW know good and evil after they ate of the tree which is far from ironic.
> ...



I agree this goes against tradition and the WCF though I do think that it really is not hard to see that the statement of God in scripture that says "22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:" implies that after the fall Adam and Eve has something that they did not have before the fall. Now I will say I will read over this entire thread again knowing that this statement may be ironic which maybe or maybe not according to tradition or the WCF, though I doubt I will find many traditional commentaries on this verse that would say this it is an ironic statement. The point is if it is not an ironic statement it says that man now has something in common with God that was not there before the fall and I am sure you would agree it is not the subjective knowledge of sin.

Ruben could you point out what assumption I have that is inconsistent with the bible? I have a feeling I am not see what you imply here?

---------- Post added at 04:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:16 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> What I don't understand is why, if lust is already sin, that James 1 and the patience of God, waited until that lust actually brought forth sin before it was judged, whereas if we lust in our heart for a woman, we need not wait until this lust brings forth a physical act of adultery before this is sin.



Here was a question by Perg that may clarify what I am trying to convey with my original question. We all would say the fall came about because Adam ate the fruit and it happen because of this *act* of disobedience. Now I know we all would agree that we can indeed sin by thought and no doubt Adam thought before he acted, thus as Perg brings up, why did God wait *untill* he ate if he did indeed sin *before *he ate?


----------



## earl40 (Sep 15, 2011)

I would like to thank all of you for your patience with me. I have read the thread and am content in all your replies in that I have run into the mystery of how could Adam choose to sin while being created very good.

Of course "The First Cause" decreed it so, and how this works with men's choices is mysterious to me also.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 15, 2011)

Earl, I think the key is in what Heidi posted to you. God says "behold, the man has become as one of us to know good and evil". If you affirm that Adam was a blank slate with regard to evil, how do you avoid affirming that he was a blank slate with regard to good? But how is it possible to deny that he knew good? Everything God had made was very good - and Adam was put over it! So plainly Genesis 3:22 is not stating that Adam had gone from being a blank slate to being aware of questions of morality. Now while there may be several attractive interpretive options at this point, including that it is an ironical statement, one idea that is excluded is of the fall as moral awakening. And of course any such theory founders anyway on the interpretation that Paul gives to the image of God as including knowledge.
I don't mean to provide a superfluous remark after you indicated you have come to some cognitive rest - I just wanted to point out that it is not without Scripture, but by a careful reading of Scripture as a whole that the tradition and Westminster specifically came to the result they achieved.


----------

