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

[py3ak]

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.

(...)

But this nature of the world and of man, that is aligned with moral norms is not what makes those no norms normative. It is God's command that does so.

This is the point of the command in the garden, not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam saw that the fruit was good: that, by natural law so to speak, there was nothing wrong about eating it.

But the tree was the tree of the knowlege of good and evil. What was this knowlege? That good and evil are determined by the word of God and not by external nature (the goodness and beauty of the fruit) or by man's internal nature (hunger, desire for nutrition, etc.). The tree, taken together with God's command, gave this knowledge without man's having to eat from it. Eating the fruit from the tree is not aquiring knowlege of good and evil but going against that knowlege.

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

 

[Constantlyreforming]

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]

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]

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.

(...)

But this nature of the world and of man, that is aligned with moral norms is not what makes those no norms normative. It is God's command that does so.

This is the point of the command in the garden, not to eat of the fruit of the tree. Adam saw that the fruit was good: that, by natural law so to speak, there was nothing wrong about eating it.

But the tree was the tree of the knowlege of good and evil. What was this knowlege? That good and evil are determined by the word of God and not by external nature (the goodness and beauty of the fruit) or by man's internal nature (hunger, desire for nutrition, etc.). The tree, taken together with God's command, gave this knowledge without man's having to eat from it. Eating the fruit from the tree is not aquiring knowlege of good and evil but going against that knowlege.

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

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 ----------

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 ----------

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]

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]

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.