Adam & Eve's sin

[hh92]

How is it that Adam & Eve are said to have been created perfect, yet they were led to temptation by the serpent? Surely they must have had some inherent impurity for this to have happened?

 

[Aussie Pete]

How is it that Adam & Eve are said to have been created perfect, yet they were led to temptation by the serpent? Surely they must have had some inherent impurity for this to have happened?

Adam and Eve were created "good" but they were incomplete. They were morally neutral. That is why God placed two unique trees in the Garden of Eden, as well as all the other trees. Adam's life was natural. God's life is spiritual. God offered Adam the choice, the Tree of Life (spiritual) or the Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.

There was a warning attached to the Tree of Knowledge. The fruit of that tree was deadly. If Adam had eaten from the Tree of Life, he would have been completed in God's way and he would have been permanently in harmony with God. The mess the world is in proves that knowing the difference between good and evil is nowhere near enough. Adam chose that knowledge. Christ came to reverse the blight that Adam brought on the human race. If you need to know more, let me know and I'll help you.

 

[hh92]

Why were the two unique trees placed there in the first place? Was it supposed to be some kind of test?

 

[JackRT]

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

What we are is a people that is still evolving and that evolution has profoundly affected not just our bodies but our psyches as well. The world in which we evolved was a difficult and dagerous one and mere survival was of the highest priority. Selfishness became a part of who we are as a survival mechanism. This selfish instinct is no longer as necessary as in our savage past but it is still powerful. If there is an "Original Sin", this is it. Of course it is not a sin really but an innate part of our nature and it can be overcome.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

 

[JAL]

Why were the two unique trees placed there in the first place? Was it supposed to be some kind of test?

Probably so. God wanted us to have free will to choose between good and evil. The trees afforded Adam and Eve an opportunity to make that choice.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It was God's plan all along.

 

[crossnote]

How is it that Adam & Eve are said to have been created perfect, yet they were led to temptation by the serpent? Surely they must have had some inherent impurity for this to have happened?

Good and Perfect are two different words.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Why were the two unique trees placed there in the first place? Was it supposed to be some kind of test?

Not a test. it was to give Adam a genuine choice

I do not read the Genesis myth as a fall from an original state of perfection into sin and death. The first couple were completely innocent and naive creatures. They were certainly capable of making a mistake but, without knowing good from evil, they lacked even the ability to sin. That ability came only with them eating of the "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". To me the story is a "coming of age story". Our mythical first couple graduated from animal status into to fully self aware human beings capable of making moral judgements. This is not an Original Sin story but rather an Original Blessing story that should be celebrated. We are not a people fallen from an original state of perfection into sin and death.

Why the expulsion from Eden? In the mythology, I believe it to be symbolic that mankind was no longer a naïve creature living in moral ignorance but had become real men and women living in a real world where there was real good and evil.

What we are is a people that is still evolving and that evolution has profoundly affected not just our bodies but our psyches as well. The world in which we evolved was a difficult and dagerous one and mere survival was of the highest priority. Selfishness became a part of who we are as a survival mechanism. This selfish instinct is no longer as necessary as in our savage past but it is still powerful. If there is an "Original Sin", this is it. Of course it is not a sin really but an innate part of our nature and it can be overcome.

In the words of John Spong: "Every living thing, plant and animal is programmed to survive. What is true of all these living things is also true of human life. The only difference is that we human beings are self-conscious, while plants and animals are not. If survival is our highest goal, self-centeredness is inevitable and thus this quality becomes a constant part of the human experience. Traditionally, the church has called this "original sin" and has explained it with the myth of the fall. That was simply wrong. Survival is a quality found in life itself. There was no fall. Self-centered, survival driven, self-conscious creatures is simply who we are. There is thus no such thing as "original sin" from which we need to be rescued by a divine invader. So much of traditional Christianity assumes this false premise."

If self-centredness is such a good thing, why does society punish the experts at it? The hacker who empties your bank account is far smarter than the person who works 60 hours a week to earn enough just to survive. The words "unfair" and unjust are meaningless in an evolutionary context. Spong is partly right, but he also is wrong in a vital issue. Man is made in God's image, in spite of the fall which has marred that image. Original sin is exactly the problem of humanity and Christ's redemption is the only solution to that problem.

 

[Albion]

How is it that Adam & Eve are said to have been created perfect, yet they were led to temptation by the serpent? Surely they must have had some inherent impurity for this to have happened?

No, they simply were endowed by God their Creator with free will, a quality shared with God himself. They couldn't handle it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How is it that Adam & Eve are said to have been created perfect, yet they were led to temptation by the serpent? Surely they must have had some inherent impurity for this to have happened?

The question of whether or not Adam and Eve were created "perfect" is one of those unclear matters. There is an agreement that, as the story suggests, they were created innocent; but the word "perfect" is a more complicated one.

There is a train of thought in historic Christian theology that the Incarnation was always God's plan--the union of Divinity and humanity in the Person of Jesus is not a bandage or an afterthought; but was always the point. And so Adam and Eve were not created "perfect" but rather created in a state of potential, to grow, mature, learn. And that perfection, that maturity is found in Christ. As such the Fall, while certainly the fall, a disruption of the created order, is not a hindrance to God's purposes. Rather God leads the world through Abraham, Israel, et al to Jesus who is the healing and salvation of this broken, wounded world.

In that sense Adam and Eve's act of sinful rebellion is a kind of childish revolt. Obviously it's more serious than just that, but it's in the sense that Adam and Eve are portrayed as innocent and, frankly, a bit naive--like children.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hh92]

Hi all,

Thanks for your responses so far. I guess I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing really. Like I'm struggling to understand why God felt the need to create man, who would go on to sin despite being ignorant of the difference between good and evil, and would then fall into an inherent state of sinfulness only to be redeemed by God's grace and worship of God, the one who created them in the first place. To me it's kinda like having a child and then saying to it "I have created you, now be obedient to me and worship me otherwise you will be punished for eternity."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Hi all,

Thanks for your responses so far. I guess I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing really. Like I'm struggling to understand why God felt the need to create man, who would go on to sin despite being ignorant of the difference between good and evil, and would then fall into an inherent state of sinfulness only to be redeemed by God's grace and worship of God, the one who created them in the first place. To me it's kinda like having a child and then saying to it "I have created you, now be obedient to me and worship me otherwise you will be punished for eternity."

It's a kingdom thing basically. God wants us to learn what happens as a result of rebellion against good order. His heavenly kingdom was torn apart by the rebellion of Lucifer. The sin of Eve and Adam mirrors that of Lucifer, and will infect the world from that point forward until it causes the virtual destruction of the earth and of humanity. God will then restore it, and after restore his spirit kingdom. It's a restoration project.

Acts 3:21
"Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

 

[hh92]

It's a kingdom thing basically. God wants us to learn what happens as a result of rebellion against good order. His heavenly kingdom was torn apart by the rebellion of Lucifer. The sin of Eve and Adam mirrors that of Lucifer, and will infect the world from that point forward until it causes the virtual destruction of the earth and of humanity. God will then restore it, and after restore his spirit kingdom. It's a restoration project.

Acts 3:21
"Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began."

Is Lucifer's story in the Bible? I'm curious to find out more about his back story and why he felt the need to rebel in the first place. Also if God created everything did he not also create Lucifer?

 

[JackRT]

Is Lucifer's story in the Bible? I'm curious to find out more about his back story and why he felt the need to rebel in the first place. Also if God created everything did he not also create Lucifer?

God didn't create Satan, man did. Satan (ha'shaitan) occurs by name in the Old Testament in the parable we call the Book of Job, and here it's clear that the angel Satan is not the Devil! The Devil is supposedly banished from the presence of God, yet in Job, Satan is allowed to talk with and to come and go from God's presence and on a mission for God yet! What's going on? Satan here is not "the Devil" but sort of God's prosecuting attorney, an unwelcome character but not an evil one. There is a very common perception that the 'Lucifer' in Isaiah 14:12ff refers to Satan, the supernatural personification of evil. This misconception comes from two sources. The first is wishful thinking in the sense that it is nice to think that 'the Enemy' will get his come-uppance eventually. The second has to do with the old caution that scripture is to be read only 'in context'. This requires going back and reading all of Isaiah 13 and the earlier verses in Isaiah 14. When this is done we suddenly realize that scripture is not speaking of a supernatural Satan at all but of a Babylonian king with an immense ego. Read Isaiah 14: " 4 you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:" What follows is a long rant against this oppressive king filled with numerous reference to his human nature like Isaiah 14: "16 Those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate: Is this the man who shook the earth and made kingdoms tremble, 17 the man who made the world a desert, who overthrew its cities and would not let his captives go home?" This passage is in no way a reference to Satan or the devil. The Jews did not originally believe in devils but they picked up this concept during the Babylonian Exile from the Persians who followed Zoroastrianism. The Zoroastrians believed in both a god of good (Ahura-Mazda) and a god of evil (Ahrulman) engaged in a cosmic struggle. The Jews picked up and ran with this idea. It was easy to cast YHWH in the role of the God of good. They took also the angel ha'shaitan (Satan) in the book of Job and recast that character as Satan the near divine force of evil. Up to that time, their concept of God was of a being responsible for everything, both good and evil. Isaiah 45:”7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.” is just one quote that demonstrates this. The Jews never connected Satan to the serpent in the Garden of Eden. It was the second-century Christian martyr, Justin of Samaria, who was first to argue that Satan appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is Lucifer's story in the Bible? I'm curious to find out more about his back story and why he felt the need to rebel in the first place. Also if God created everything did he not also create Lucifer?

The creation of Eve mirrors the creation of Lucifer. God was rehearsing the creation of Lucifer in Eve in that Lucifer was made of the very substance of God himself, to be his spirit 'loved one'. Lucifer was a 'wife-type' to God, without actually having a 'female' gender. Lucifer was the ante-type of the Proverbs 31 woman, being given great authority and resources to provide and care for God's family of angels, while her husband/God was 'in the gate'/on his throne.

Eve likewise was made from the very substance of Adam...his rib, to be his helper and consort/wife. As God created Lucifer a 'suitable' companion for himself, he also created Eve as a suitable companion for Adam, realizing that it was not good for either of them to be alone. So as Adam gave up part of himself for the creation of Eve God also gave part of himself in the creation of Lucifer.

Lucifer, like the Proverbs 31 wife, was given great authority, over one-third of the spirit family of God. Lucifer had a throne, whether physical or not, upon the earth, and became enamored with the idea of elevating that position over all the other angels. It grew into a conspiracy involving all of the angels in his charge. With strength of numbers he ascended to the throne room of God and sought equal authority. What Lucifer attempted to claim was deemed by God to be "rebellion" against his authority, and thus the concept of "sin" came into being.

Eve did much the same thing, taking authority to herself, however innocent and however deceived, in regard to God's authority.

The results were the same. Lucifer was cast out of heaven, Eve and Adam were cast out of paradise. Both events led to ruin, of God's heavenly kingdom, and of the repeated ruin of the kingdoms of the earth, to culminate in total destruction, save for the eleventh hour intervention 'for the elects sake'.

Happily both kingdoms will be restored. The earth under the millennial rule of Christ; the Kingdom of Heaven in the 'new heavens and new earth'.

 

[brinny]

How is it that Adam & Eve are said to have been created perfect, yet they were led to temptation by the serpent? Surely they must have had some inherent impurity for this to have happened?

They were created perfect. So was Lucifer, AKA Satan.

What cropped up here in Lucifer, and then Eve, then Adam, is "pride" and its "twin", "willfulness" aka rebellion against the living God.

It is written in the book of Genesis what transpired, and the consequences.

Welcome to CF, hh92.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hi all,

Thanks for your responses so far. I guess I'm just a bit confused by the whole thing really. Like I'm struggling to understand why God felt the need to create man, who would go on to sin despite being ignorant of the difference between good and evil, and would then fall into an inherent state of sinfulness only to be redeemed by God's grace and worship of God, the one who created them in the first place. To me it's kinda like having a child and then saying to it "I have created you, now be obedient to me and worship me otherwise you will be punished for eternity."

It might be more helpful to look at it through the lens of the Parable of the Prodigal Son--the son goes away and squanders everything which he had from his father, and ends up living in the squalor of pigs, but returns to the father thinking maybe he can take the place of a mere slave--the father's response instead is to run out to meet the long lost child, throw his arms around him, clothe the son in the finest of clothes, and then throw a great big party.

Further, I think as far as why create man at all--even given how badly humanity screws up--that needs to be looked through the lens of the Incarnation.

St. Athanasius of Alexandria, the 4th century bishop, theologian, and highly esteemed doctor of the faith wrote in his work On the Incarnation,

"...let him recognise it, and not laugh at what is no matter for scoffing; but rather let him marvel that by so ordinary a means things divine have been manifested to us, and that by death immortality has reached to all, and that by the Word becoming man, the universal Providence has been known, and its Giver and Artificer the very Word of God. For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality. For while He Himself was in no way injured, being impassible and incorruptible and very Word and God, men who were suffering, and for whose sakes He endured all this, He maintained and preserved in His own impassibility" - On the Incarnation, ch. 54

This statement in bold is important, and it's also easily misunderstood. This is the Christian doctrine of Theosis, literally "Deification" or "Divinization". It's easily misunderstood because the doctrine of Theosis isn't that we become "gods" by nature, or that we somehow cease to be ourselves and become the Eternal and Almighty God. Rather, Theosis is the participation of God's Self with us; God shares Himself with us and we become sharers, partakers, in Him. It follows from a statement St. Peter makes in his second epistle in the New Testament, that we have "become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4).

In God becoming human, God has joined His nature to our nature; and so in the one undivided Person of Jesus Christ there is true God and true man--He is fully God and fully human without confusion or separation. And the participation of God in our humanity is to take hold of us, bring us into Himself, join us with Himself, and thus make us partakers of Himself--so that if we are "in Christ", joined to Him, to His Person, we are sharing in Him and what He has and is as a gift, as grace.

In this the Incarnation draws into itself the communion and meeting between the Uncreated (God) and all which He made (creation); and so there is the union here of God and man in Jesus; of the Uncreated and the creature.

St. Paul in his letter to the Colossians makes a very powerful statement about Christ, namely this:

"For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross." - Colossians 1:16-20

By Him, all things.
In Him, all things.
For Him, all things.

There is this sense here that Paul is saying that Jesus is the telos, the goal, the point, of literally everything. It all exists because of Jesus, it all exists for Jesus. That the direction of history and the cosmos itself is toward Jesus Christ. The now reposed and dearly departed John Paul II begins his encyclical Redemptor Hominus by saying, "The Redeemer of Man, Jesus Christ, is the centre of the universe and of history."

I'm not, I realize, making necessarily a very thorough argument. What I'm instead attempting to do here is point to these things in order to draw the larger point, a point that I think is much much bigger than any single conversation or discussion could really allow.

The direction of creation is toward Jesus. Why things exist, because Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is Lucifer's story in the Bible? I'm curious to find out more about his back story and why he felt the need to rebel in the first place. Also if God created everything did he not also create Lucifer?

In fact, "Lucifer" isn't the name of anyone or anything. It's a Latin word that translates to "light-bringer", and it is found in Latin translations of Isaiah ch. 14, as a translation of the Hebrew word heylel meaning "shining", a reference to the planet Venus; unsurprisingly in the Greek of the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) the word here is eosphorus, "dawn-bringer". The use of this term is an epithet made against the king of Babylon (most likely Nebuchadnezzar II), here's the passage:

"When the LORD has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

'How the oppressor has ceased, the insolent fury ceased! The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers, that struck the peoples in wrath with unceasing blows, ... How you are fallen from the heavens, O day-star, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; above the stars of God, I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the far reaches of the pit. Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?" All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; but you are cast out, away from your grave, like a loathed branch, clothed with the slain, those pierced by the sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a dead body trampled underfoot. You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people.'" - Isaiah 14:3-6, 12-20

In the middle ages a number of Christian exegetes saw in this passage an anagogical reference to the fall of the devil from heaven.

The text is very clearly not talking about the devil, but a very human king. But because of the anagogical reading of the text, it has become very common for Christians, at least in the West, to see this as a reference to the devil and as such have taken the Latin translation of day-star (lucifer) as a name for the devil.

So there's that.

Further, the Bible doesn't talk about the fall of the devil. The closest might be the War in Heaven passage found in the Apocalypse of St. John (i.e. Revelation ch. 12).

The Bible just isn't all that interested in the devil--the devil is assumed to exist, and so the biblical writers do mention the devil, and warn their readers to resist him. But the the devil's "origin story" if you want to call it that--well that doesn't exist. All we can really glean from Scripture is that there are angels who are fallen, they are called by the Greek words daimon and diabolos, the former being a generic word for "spirits", with the latter meaning "accuser" (compare with the Hebrew Ha-Shatan, meaning "the accuser"). Satan, or the devil, being the chief of the devils, the leader of these fallen angels.

When they fell, how they fell, etc. That information isn't available.

There are a number of 2nd Temple period non-biblical texts which do contain a more robust "mythology" about fallen angels, which can be useful in understanding how Jews from the time (and later Christians) might have been thinking on these subjects. But these aren't authoritative, and they don't agree--only that, yes, there are fallen angels.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

Why were the two unique trees placed there in the first place? Was it supposed to be some kind of test?

It is not God "testing" us to see how we will do, but you might call it a "test" for Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve needed to know they lacked something needed.

 

[hh92]

In fact, "Lucifer" isn't the name of anyone or anything. It's a Latin word that translates to "light-bringer", and it is found in Latin translations of Isaiah ch. 14, as a translation of the Hebrew word heylel meaning "shining", a reference to the planet Venus; unsurprisingly in the Greek of the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) the word here is eosphorus, "dawn-bringer". The use of this term is an epithet made against the king of Babylon (most likely Nebuchadnezzar II), here's the passage:

"When the LORD has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon:

'How the oppressor has ceased, the insolent fury ceased! The LORD has broken the staff of the wicked, the scepter of rulers, that struck the peoples in wrath with unceasing blows, ... How you are fallen from the heavens, O day-star, son of the dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low! You said in your heart, "I will ascend to the heavens; above the stars of God, I will set my throne on high; I will sit on the mount of assembly in the far reaches of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave, to the far reaches of the pit. Those who see you will stare at you and ponder over you: "Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world like a desert and overthrew its cities, who did not let his prisoners go home?" All the kings of the nations lie in glory, each in his own tomb; but you are cast out, away from your grave, like a loathed branch, clothed with the slain, those pierced by the sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a dead body trampled underfoot. You will not be joined with them in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people.'" - Isaiah 14:3-6, 12-20

In the middle ages a number of Christian exegetes saw in this passage an anagogical reference to the fall of the devil from heaven.

The text is very clearly not talking about the devil, but a very human king. But because of the anagogical reading of the text, it has become very common for Christians, at least in the West, to see this as a reference to the devil and as such have taken the Latin translation of day-star (lucifer) as a name for the devil.

So there's that.

Further, the Bible doesn't talk about the fall of the devil. The closest might be the War in Heaven passage found in the Apocalypse of St. John (i.e. Revelation ch. 12).

The Bible just isn't all that interested in the devil--the devil is assumed to exist, and so the biblical writers do mention the devil, and warn their readers to resist him. But the the devil's "origin story" if you want to call it that--well that doesn't exist. All we can really glean from Scripture is that there are angels who are fallen, they are called by the Greek words daimon and diabolos, the former being a generic word for "spirits", with the latter meaning "accuser" (compare with the Hebrew Ha-Shatan, meaning "the accuser"). Satan, or the devil, being the chief of the devils, the leader of these fallen angels.

When they fell, how they fell, etc. That information isn't available.

There are a number of 2nd Temple period non-biblical texts which do contain a more robust "mythology" about fallen angels, which can be useful in understanding how Jews from the time (and later Christians) might have been thinking on these subjects. But these aren't authoritative, and they don't agree--only that, yes, there are fallen angels.

-CryptoLutheran

Apologies for such a late response- and thank you for such a detailed one! Very helpful!