The responsibility for the Fall

[Teofrastus]

When God drove mankind out of the Garden, he placed cherubim to guard the entrance (Genesis 3:24). But why didn't he place a cherub at the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thereby preventing unforgivable sin? And in the Mesopotamian version, why did the gardener Tagtug get the instruction not to eat from the cinnamon tree? What is the likelihood that he would have stood there, gnawing on the bark, if he hadn't received the warning? It's like God incited the catastrophe, because it was necessary that mankind took the burden of sin for the Fall.

 

[Clare73]

When God drove mankind out of the Garden, he placed cherubim to guard the entrance (Genesis 3:24). But why didn't he place a cherub at the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thereby preventing unforgivable sin? And in the Mesopotamian version, why did the gardener Tagtug get the instruction not to eat from the cinnamon tree? What is the likelihood that he would have stood there, gnawing on the bark, if he hadn't received the warning?
It's like God incited the catastrophe, because it was necessary that mankind took the burden of sin for the Fall.

God ordained the conditions that allowed for the fall.

He could have made Adam fixed in righteousness, but he did not, and Adam failed his trial. . .but Jesus, the second Adam, did not fail his trial.

Now only the born again are fixed in righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, which righteousness results in obedience.

 

[Teofrastus]

God ordained the conditions that allowed for the fall.

He could have made Adam fixed in righteousness, but he did not, and Adam failed his trial. . .but Jesus, the second Adam, did not fail his trial.

Now only the born again are fixed in righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, which righteousness results in obedience.

He couldn't have made Adam fixed in righteousness, because then he wouldn't be a human being but an angel. But God could have placed a cherub before the Tree of Knowledge. Instead, he incited the Fall and let Adam take the blame for it. It was necessary, because man must carry consciousness of sin, or else he is not wholly human but remains on the animal level.

 

[Clare73]

He couldn't have made Adam fixed in righteousness, because then he wouldn't be a human being but an angel.

The angels were not fixed in righteousness until they had passed their trial.
Adam failed his trial, and the angels who failed their trial became demons.

But God could have placed a cherub before the Tree of Knowledge. Instead, he incited the Fall and let Adam take the blame for it.
It was necessary, because man must carry consciousness of sin, or else he is not wholly human but remains on the animal level.

Any support for that in the Scriptures?

I say Ro 9:22-23 is a better answer.

 

[KevinT]

When God drove mankind out of the Garden, he placed cherubim to guard the entrance (Genesis 3:24). But why didn't he place a cherub at the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thereby preventing unforgivable sin? And in the Mesopotamian version, why did the gardener Tagtug get the instruction not to eat from the cinnamon tree? What is the likelihood that he would have stood there, gnawing on the bark, if he hadn't received the warning? It's like God incited the catastrophe, because it was necessary that mankind took the burden of sin for the Fall.

There are those in Reformed theology that believe everything that happens in the universe is exactly at God ordains it, and thus the disobedience of Adam and Eve was all in the plan of God. This school of thought is called Supralapsarianism. There are also postlapsarianism view that somehow the election/predestination doesn't kick in until after the fall. I disagree with all this and it doesn't make sense to me.

Revelation describes war in heaven between God and Satan:

Rev 12:7 Then there was war in heaven; Michael and the angels under his command fought the Dragon and his hosts of fallen angels. 8 And the Dragon lost the battle and was forced from heaven. 9 This great Dragon—the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world—was thrown down onto the earth with all his army.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil, where the ancient serpent tempted and caused the downfall of our ancestors, was part of the battleground from the war in heaven. It was a test for loyalty. Would we take God at His word, and remain innocent of the knowledge of evil? Or would we listen to the devil, join his cause against God, and learn first-hand the difference between good and evil?

So it would not make sense for God to physically prevent our Adam and Eve from being allowed to choose sides. That was the point, "choice."

I reject the idea that God somehow wanted sin to come into our world. Instead, He wanted to spare us all the sorrow that would follow, and thus He warned our parents to stay away from it -- with a potential penalty of death. When they failed the test, God Himself took on the task of our salvation and redemption. When we break a bone in our body, cells leap into action to start the healing process -- but how much better would it have been if the break never occurred? Likewise God leapt into action to save us, but how much better if Adam and Eve had not rebelled in the first place?

tldr: Putting a cherubim as guard by the tree would have removed Adam and Eve's ability to choose.


Best wises,
KT

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Entering into the symbology, logic and world of myth is a good way to explore its deeper meaning as long as we do not make the mistake of expecting it all to be literal historical. The hare made a bad mistake taking a nap thinking he could easily beat the turtle. Good lesson to be learned about hubris. Is it a historical event? No.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's like God incited the catastrophe, because it was necessary that mankind took the burden of sin for the Fall.

The author of the narrative needs to account for what we perceive as our fallen human nature. It seems to be a given fact of our existence. We err, sin and die. There is no avoiding that reality.

 

[Teofrastus]

...

Gustaf Aulén says: "The ultimate question here is of something that lies at the root of all biblical and Christian preaching: God versus the demonic and destructive forces in existence" ("The drama and the symbols", p. 156). Aulén is the author of the famous book "Christus Victor", an atonement theory that builds on the myth of warring forces in heaven. I take biblical mythology seriously, but in this we are getting dangerously close to Manichaeism. I prefer the view that the devil has not such power that he can seriously threaten the reign of God. He can only deceive people and mess things up. Indeed, Christ defeats the devil; but it cannot be the whole truth, because a fallen world cannot make do without a devil in it.

"The world is all the richer for having a devil in it, so long as we keep our foot upon his neck." — William James​

 

[Teofrastus]

The author of the narrative needs to account for what we perceive as our fallen human nature. It seems to be a given fact of our existence. We err, sin and die. There is no avoiding that reality.

It's not only fallen human nature, but the horrors of existence, generally. Death reigns in the universe. There is no intelligent life out there, it seems. So, has God fouled up, or has the devil really such powers that he can cause such enormous suffering on this earth? I'm at my wits end.

 

[KevinT]

Gustaf Aulén says: "The ultimate question here is of something that lies at the root of all biblical and Christian preaching: God versus the demonic and destructive forces in existence" ("The drama and the symbols", p. 156). Aulén is the author of the famous book "Christus Victor", an atonement theory that builds on the myth of warring forces in heaven. I take biblical mythology seriously, but in this we are getting dangerously close to Manichaeism. I prefer the view that the devil has not such powers that he can seriously threaten the reign of God. He can only deceive people and mess things up. Indeed, Christ defeats the devil; but it cannot be the whole truth, because a fallen world cannot make do without a devil in it.

God obviously holds all the power. But He wants His creatures to love Him out of choice, and not out of force. The devil is shown to have power in the Bible. He was able to trick Adam and Eve into wrong-doing, cause a horrible chain of consequences to follow. He tried again to do the same to Jesus, but was unable to do the same. So when I am talking about power, I'm not thinking of blow-things-up type power, but rather the power effect loyalty and allegiance to God.

"The world is all the richer for having a devil in it, so long as we keep our foot upon his neck." — William James​

This statement makes me very uncomfortable. It is like saying it was a GOOD thing that Eve ate the fruit. After all, see all the extra knowledge of good and evil she learned about? Wasn't that great? This is the lie that the serpent was telling her then, and it is still a lie today. In my mind Satan has only caused misery and destruction and downfall. No redeeming qualities.

Best wishes,

KT

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's not only fallen human nature, but the horrors of existence, generally. Death reigns in the universe. There is no intelligent life out there, it seems. So, has God fouled up, or has the devil really such powers that he can cause such enormous suffering on this earth? I'm at my wits end.

I have been getting some inspiration and hope from David Tracy: "That basic faith in the worthwhileness of existence, in the final graciousness of our lives even in the mist of absurdity, may be named the religious dimension of our existence."

Yes, I sometimes struggle with that basic faith. And I think only Christianity has an adequate framing of it. I have studies other religions. Only Christianity embraces suffering in Paschal mystery. Hard teachings we often dismiss.

 

[Teofrastus]

God obviously holds all the power. But He wants His creatures to love Him out of choice, and not out of force. The devil is shown to have power in the Bible. He was able to trick Adam and Eve into wrong-doing, cause a horrible chain of consequences to follow. He tried again to do the same to Jesus, but was unable to do the same. So when I am talking about power, I'm not thinking of blow-things-up type power, but rather the power effect loyalty and allegiance to God.


This statement makes me very uncomfortable. It is like saying it was a GOOD thing that Eve ate the fruit. After all, see all the extra knowledge of good and evil she learned about? Wasn't that great? This is the lie that the serpent was telling her then, and it is still a lie today. In my mind Satan has only caused misery and destruction and downfall. No redeeming qualities.

Best wishes,

KT

According to Kirsten Nielsen ("Satan - The Prodigal Son", 1998), Satan fulfils his function as prosecutor, similar to his role in the Book of Job. He tempts God's son in order to verify his merit. Thus, the temptation of Satan only serves to strengthen his resolve. It is a step in God's plan of redemption, as Jesus now knows that he is going to go through with it.

Satan has an important function, and this is also the view of Luther. Was it a good thing that Eve ate the fruit? Augustine calls it a felix culpa, a fortunate fault, because it led to the Incarnation.

Today we know that "destruction", the competence of Satan, is necessary for the creation of order. The universe as a whole is continually being destroyed as orderly subsystems develop. It has to do with the thermodynamic law that the creation of order requires the exportation of an even greater amount of disorder (entropy). Thus, order can only exist together with entropic increase. Orderliness must float like a ship on a sea of disorderliness.

It means that God's creation is not antagonistic to the destructive power of Satan. In fact, creation and its maintenance requires destruction. For instance, the building of a medieval cathedral created more disorder (in the way of deforestation, injured workers, waste-products, etc.) than it created order in the form of a splendid cathedral. Whole forests were cut down. Deforestation caused the rivers to become muddied, which in turn caused trout and salmon to disappear from the rivers of Europe. What can we say? It seems that Satan has been assigned to do the dirty job of God. Luther was right.

 

[KevinT]

What can we say? It seems that Satan has been assigned to do the dirty job of God. Luther was right.

I hear what you are saying, but I disagree.

But that's one of the points of this forum, to encounter views different from our own, right?

Best wishes,
KT

 

[A Devil's Advocate]

When God drove mankind out of the Garden, he placed cherubim to guard the entrance (Genesis 3:24). But why didn't he place a cherub at the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thereby preventing unforgivable sin? And in the Mesopotamian version, why did the gardener Tagtug get the instruction not to eat from the cinnamon tree? What is the likelihood that he would have stood there, gnawing on the bark, if he hadn't received the warning? It's like God incited the catastrophe, because it was necessary that mankind took the burden of sin for the Fall.

God does nothing without intent and purpose. Placing the tree of knowledge in the garden to begin with, was with obvious intent and with a purpose in mind. So, what was it?

If I was able to remove from you any and all knowledge of evil, could you know God? If God is all good, and I have removed any reference point from which to distinguish what is good from what is evil, since you cannot know one without knowing the other, how would you know God? Both the serpent and God confirmed, that before eating from the tree of knowledge, man knew neither good or evil.

If you are unable to know God, then you are just as unable to choose of your on freewill to live a life with or without God. Of course, attaining this knowledge of good and evil opens up a big can of worms when it comes to the justice of God and the punishment for sin. Hence why it was always predestined that we would be children of God through Christ Jesus. There was no other way around it.

 

[Teofrastus]

God does nothing without intent and purpose. Placing the tree of knowledge in the garden to begin with, was with obvious intent and with a purpose in mind. So, what was it?

If I was able to remove from you any and all knowledge of evil, could you know God? If God is all good, and I have removed any reference point from which to distinguish what is good from what is evil, since you cannot know one without knowing the other, how would you know God? Both the serpent and God confirmed, that before eating from the tree of knowledge, man knew neither good or evil.

If you are unable to know God, then you are just as unable to choose of your on freewill to live a life with or without God. Of course, attaining this knowledge of good and evil opens up a big can of worms when it comes to the justice of God and the punishment for sin. Hence why it was always predestined that we would be children of God through Christ Jesus. There was no other way around it.

What's the point in the sun emitting light if there is no life-giving earth to receive it? The Fall was required in order to create an other that could receive the light of God. Otherness requires awareness of sin. In this way we become mindful of our otherness to God. Consciousness of sin prevents identification with God. The doctrine of original sin is hyper important.

 

[RDKirk]

There are those in Reformed theology that believe everything that happens in the universe is exactly at God ordains it, and thus the disobedience of Adam and Eve was all in the plan of God. This school of thought is called Supralapsarianism. There are also postlapsarianism view that somehow the election/predestination doesn't kick in until after the fall. I disagree with all this and it doesn't make sense to me.

Revelation describes war in heaven between God and Satan:


The tree of knowledge of good and evil, where the ancient serpent tempted and caused the downfall of our ancestors, was part of the battleground from the war in heaven. It was a test for loyalty. Would we take God at His word, and remain innocent of the knowledge of evil? Or would we listen to the devil, join his cause against God, and learn first-hand the difference between good and evil?

So it would not make sense for God to physically prevent our Adam and Eve from being allowed to choose sides. That was the point, "choice."

I reject the idea that God somehow wanted sin to come into our world. Instead, He wanted to spare us all the sorrow that would follow, and thus He warned our parents to stay away from it -- with a potential penalty of death. When they failed the test, God Himself took on the task of our salvation and redemption. When we break a bone in our body, cells leap into action to start the healing process -- but how much better would it have been if the break never occurred? Likewise God leapt into action to save us, but how much better if Adam and Eve had not rebelled in the first place?

tldr: Putting a cherubim as guard by the tree would have removed Adam and Eve's ability to choose.


Best wises,
KT

So, why did God create Lucifer in the first place? Or why didn't God cast Lucifer into the abyss the first time, instead of just pushing Lucifer out of heaven and into the world?

There is also the legal issue as expressed by Paul:

I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from the law, sin is dead.

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. So I discovered that the very commandment that was meant to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through the commandment put me to death. -- Romans 7

If God did not want sin ever to enter the world, He could have achieved that merely by never stating any law. If He had made nothing illegal, nothing would be sin. Paul asserts that by God's act of stating a law, sin became inevitable.

We see expressed several times even in the Mosaic Law that the law is required for sin to exist, and even ignorance of the law is an excuse. Atonement for a sin is not required unless and until the person is aware of the law. Even Jesus stated, "If you were blind, you would be innocent." Without knowledge of the law, there is no sin.

"For apart from the law, sin is dead." If there were no law, there would be no sin.

 

[KevinT]

So, why did God create Lucifer in the first place? Or why didn't God cast Lucifer into the abyss the first time, instead of just pushing Lucifer out of heaven and into the world?

I believe God created Lucifer as a perfect being with freedom of will. He himself chose to turn against God and to become the accuser "Satan". We see him in this role in the garden of Eden where he tricked our parents into disobedience, and one can be sure that he was quick to accuse them just as he did against Job and against the high priest Joshua (Zach 3).

I believe that Satan, with his accusations, was able to turn a substantial number in the universe against God. Rev 12:4 mentions regarding the dragon that "Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth." We know that the demoniac that Jesus encountered was possessed by "Legion, for we are many." (Mark 5:9) So there are many demons active in the world in addition to the devil himself. Would God be able to just blast all those rebels into oblivion? Certainly. But it seems that He did not. Why? I think it is because He was allowing the situation to play out, so that all of Lucifer's accusations can be seen to be false. Thus God was not battling a war of strength, but of loyalty and love. And Jesus won that victory when He demonstrated that He loved the Father so much that He was willing to lay down His life for mankind.

There is also the legal issue as expressed by Paul:

I would not have been mindful of sin if not for the law. For I would not have been aware of coveting if the law had not said, “Do not covet.” But sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from the law, sin is dead.

Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. So I discovered that the very commandment that was meant to bring life actually brought death. For sin, seizing its opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through the commandment put me to death. -- Romans 7

If God did not want sin ever to enter the world, He could have achieved that merely by never stating any law. If He had made nothing illegal, nothing would be sin.

If God had not put a restriction on the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, then there would have never been rebellion by choosing to eat the fruit. So on this point I agree.

But not every law is an arbitrary test of loyalty. When God said we were to honor our parents, He was giving a statement of reality, showing us how the universe, which follows all His physical laws, (including all the laws governing the human psyche), works. So if God had not told us not to murder, I guess one could argue that it wouldn't then be a "sin." But it would have caused all the same problems and be just as equally destructive. So I would argue that it would still be equivalent to a "sin."

"For apart from the law, sin is dead." If there were no law, there would be no sin.

"Sin" here is being described in a legal crime sort of consideration. I think it can be helpful to ALSO think of sin as "wrong-doing." John 1:9 says "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." This is addressing legal aspect via "forgiveness", but also correction of the wrong-doing via "purifying us from all unrighteousness."

KT

 

[RDKirk]

I believe God created Lucifer as a perfect being with freedom of will. He himself chose to turn against God and to become the accuser "Satan". We see him in this role in the garden of Eden where he tricked our parents into disobedience, and one can be sure that he was quick to accuse them just as he did against Job and against the high priest Joshua (Zach 3).

God clearly knew what Lucifer would do...but God created Lucifer anyway. God knew what Adam would do, but created the tree anyway. God knew what Eve would do, but created Eve anyway.

But not every law is an arbitrary test of loyalty. When God said we were to honor our parents, He was giving a statement of reality, showing us how the universe, which follows all His physical laws, (including all the laws governing the human psyche), works. So if God had not told us not to murder, I guess one could argue that it wouldn't then be a "sin." But it would have caused all the same problems and be just as equally destructive. So I would argue that it would still be equivalent to a "sin."

Why would chaos be a problem if God never said chaos was "destructive." What's objectively wrong with chaos without God's subjective declaration?

 

[Yarddog]

When God drove mankind out of the Garden, he placed cherubim to guard the entrance (Genesis 3:24). But why didn't he place a cherub at the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thereby preventing unforgivable sin? And in the Mesopotamian version, why did the gardener Tagtug get the instruction not to eat from the cinnamon tree? What is the likelihood that he would have stood there, gnawing on the bark, if he hadn't received the warning? It's like God incited the catastrophe, because it was necessary that mankind took the burden of sin for the Fall.

The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. The Tree of Life is Jesus Christ. The Tree of Knowledge is the Mosaic law. Eden is Righteousness(God's rest). Adam and Eve are the Hebrews.

The Hebrews people had righteousness through faith until they failed to believe after being called out of Egypt and God gave them the Law, which the people agreed to. They then could never have God's rest.

 

[RDKirk]

The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory. The Tree of Life is Jesus Christ. The Tree of Knowledge is the Mosaic law. Eden is Righteousness(God's rest). Adam and Eve are the Hebrews.

And Paul clearly points out that if God hadn't uttered the Law, they would be innocent, but _because_ of the Law, they are condemned. And even within the Law itself, it states repeatedly that atonement isn't needed until one knows the Law.