Did God prohibt or encourage Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge?

Faith & Science Conversation
41

We’ll have to leave our disagreement there, then. But generally speaking, if an idea, taken to its logical extreme or conclusion, ends up being absurd, this is usually taken as an indication that the idea itself is logically erroneous. This is in fact one of the best methods for testing ideas as being logically consistent… explore all the “downstream” logical consequences of said belief… and if you discover absurdities at the extremes, this ought to be indication there may well be problems with the core logic at the “spring.”

If you’re happy to embrace beliefs that would, if carefully examined, lead to downstream absurdities, you are welcome to do so, but I will maintain that such doctrines or beliefs are quite likely very problematic, and indicate logical problems at the “source”… and will certainly remain quite unconvinced as to their validity or truth.

42

There is no absurdity in a belief that God rather than man decides what He will do and be. The only problems arise when you apply it in questionable ways as you have done. My agreement that becoming one who cannot do evil has logical problems is a problem with your particular application (and the definition and nature of evil) and not with the general principle that God is perfectly capable of limiting Himself in any way He chooses. I see far more absurdities in confining God to made up human definition with the obvious implication that they are turning God into a tool of rhetoric and religion into a means for power.

I think it is my general belief in a God with integrity that seems to be a common thread. God can limit Himself because He is perfectly capable of abiding by His own decisions. But that makes Him so useless to people who want to use Him for their own purposes doesn’t it! What good is a god who abides by the laws He made Himself when you cannot promise people that this god will magically return any money given to the church tenfold. Why if you cannot promise such things, the church would lose income. “Heaven” forbid!

43

Mitchell W McKain: Why did God place the Tree in the middle of the orchard if He did not want them to eat of the Tree? Psychologists say that the subconscious ignores the negatives. Thus when God said “do not eat,” he may have known that Adam’s subconscious will read it as “do eat.”

Results were bad

Mitchell W McKain: Regarding results of the eating, the Bible does not say that results “were” bad. It only says you will die, but it does not say that Adam did die. The “curses” were all good—active mind (serpent), number of children, and plentiful food.

44

Daniel Fisher and Mervin Bitikofer: Indeed forgiveness could not exist in a world that had absolutely no evil. I agree with Mervin that that would not be the reason to embrace evil. Therefore, I think we must rethink whether they sinned by eating of the Tree or by not eating of the Tree.

45

Mitchell W McKain: Yes, the Bible says that because of sin we need salvation. I agree. But what was the sin? All I am saying is that the activation of the psyche broke the primitive connection with God. This is how we may understand “sin” here. This activation made it necessary for Jesus to save us.

46

Daniel Fisher: You say they sinned but the results were fortuitous like Joseph’s brothers selling him. I think that example may not apply. There was no connection between the sinning brothers and Joseph’s rise. The latter was a second order fortuitous result. God also did not curse the brothers who sold Joseph. But here we have God cursing Adam and Eve directly for the sin.

47

Daniel Fisher: The question here is whether the vowels added by the Masoretes are “inspired” or not. My alternatives play with the vowels; keeping the inspired consonants intact. The Genesis was revealed to Moses c. 1500 BCE. It was recorded only in consonants for 2500 years. Then the Masoretes added the vowels c. 1000 BCE. I would like to consider alternative versions of vowels in this light.

48

Kevin Guess: I agree that there was a shorter way to salvation if Adam and Eve had listened to God. In my view, if they had eaten of the Tree that was in the middle of the orchard. I do not understand how they would have been saved if they had understood God’s saying directly (and not in its content) for, then, their eyes would not be opened.

49

Kevin Guess: You say: “As Jesus taught us, sin is not particular actions, but motivations for actions, although there are some actions that no one could undertake without sinful motivations (such as adultery).” The key point is that there has to be a motivation for doing evil or sin.

Now, let us look at the sequence of the events:

God placed the man in the orchard (2:8).

God placed the Tree in the middle of the orchard (2:9).

God (again) placed man in the orchard, this time, to “to care for it and to maintain it” (2:15).

Then God commanded, “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die” (2:17).

Then Adam ate of the Tree.

Now let us examine what the motivations of Adam.

If God actually did not want Adam to eat of the Tree; then why did God place it in the middle and place man there (2:8-9).

And what was the motivation for Adam not to eat of the Tree in the time between 2:9 and 2:15, since there was no command of not eating?

And why would he eat of it after the prohibition? As far as I can understand, sin such as adultery is committed because one has the motivation to get something. Sin is not done for itself without a motivation. It is standard practice in criminal law to look at the motivation to ascribe a crime to a person. Why would Adam eat after God commanded not to eat of the Tree that he could have eaten earlier?

Now let us consider an alternative. Let us say, God wanted Adam to eat of the Tree but he would not do this because of lethargy. So God gave him a negative suggestion. Thus prompted, he ate, and his eyes were opened as God wanted. So there was no “sin.”

50

I don’t know, but my thought is that we can only look at what we have been told, whereas God looks at all. We have been told what actually happened, but not what would have happened had Adam & Eve not disobeyed God. Consequently, I see no reason to believe that God did not have an alternative path to our attaining maturity in our relationship with him, the opening of our eyes (had Adam & Eve continued to obey him), that didn’t require sin.

51

i’d have to dispute such. it sure looks to me there was a connection between what they did and his rise. Joseph certainly seemed to believe this was the case, and he certainly didn’t seem to think of his arrival in Egypt as a “second order” result, but rather by God’s own purpose plan…

And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God.

52

That flies in the face of what scripture teaches. And nor does it follow that just because God may later use the results of our evil, that it should then be re-considered as anything other than sin. From Matthew 18:

Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!

God didn’t need to curse Joseph’s brothers … their sinful actions spoke for themselves, bringing grief to their father, and I’m sure to them as well for many years. Reuben agonized over it immediately in fact when he realized what his brothers had done. And yet if none of that had happened, Joseph would never have risen to power in Egypt, and therefore provided the haven for his family in the time of famine. So I don’t see how you can claim there was no connection. And yet for all that, and even with what God brought out of it, the actions of Joseph’s brothers are not one whit less despicably sinful.

53

I would say the motivation was the fundamental motivation for all sin, which is coveting. To be like God was serpent’s temptation (3:3).

The following may be relevant to your previous comment:

In committing ourselves to Christ we learn—with the help of the Bible, the practices he gave us, the community of the church, prayer and the Helper, the Holy Spirit—to resist sin and choose good. Having fallen—originally as a people in the Garden of Eden, and individually as we all of us do as we are growing up—we learn to varying degree what sin is and what some of its worldly consequences are by sinning; that is, through experience. There is a saying, “The master has made more mistakes than the amateur has even tried.” It is much easier for us to recognize something when we have experienced it, and much easier for us to avoid it when we can recognize it. The path the Fall has caused us to take is both easier and more difficult. It’s easier because our BEING sinful makes sin more concrete and thus more easily perceived. It’s more difficult because sinning gets us into difficult situations and separates us from God, our only source of help. I would say the difficulty of it far outweighs the easiness.

But the goal is not to know sin, but rather to know, be capable of and always choose good. I am a piano teacher. If my students listen to me, I will guide them to the skills and knowledge they need to eventually go whatever direction they wish in playing the piano. They do not have to make technical mistakes in order to develop good technique. They don’t have to play music badly in order to learn to play it well. Some listen, some don’t. However they come to it, though, eventually they have to be able to choose good technique and playing music well or they will create problems for themselves, ranging from physical injury to personal dissatisfaction and unpleasant responses from others to insurmountable obstacles to their ambitions. I would much rather they listen to me, but I know there is a good chance they won’t, so I am prepared to use their disobedience for their benefit, seeking to help them learn from their bad choices. The benefit in that route, which is the route I took, is that they will be better able to teach, if they go that route, than if they’d always listened to me.

So my guess is that regardless of which path Adam and Eve took, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the serpent both had to be put in the garden that they might know they exist and have to choose either to trust or to disobey God. If they trusted God, they would know they exist but obey him regarding them. Then God could lead them to maturity—to knowing Good and Evil as did God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit—without having to experience sin through sinning.

We have Jesus as an example of someone like that. He became human, but he never sinned. He knew what sin and evil were, but did not have to learn that through sinning. He was fully mature, giving us a model for what that looks like.

Consequently, I would rather agree that we had to eat of that tree and fall, but that this is not because it is what God wanted us to do, but because of something inherent in us. And I think the evidence that it is not what he wanted is that he put both trees there and told us not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. That first sin was, specifically, doing the opposite of what he’d said he wanted us to do.

54

This really can get deep into looking at God’s actions. If Joseph was not sold into slavery in Egypt, would God have sent the famine? (referring back to the God controls the weather thread)
It also strikes me as interesting that Jacob and crew were in the Promised Land as God promised when this stuff happened. Did their sin with Joseph change God’s plan for Israel? Even when Joseph saved their hide, did their remaining in Egypt for the good life under the political power of Joseph rather than returning to Promised Land show sinful selfishness and lack in faith of God’s blessing, and result in the 400 years of slavery as a result? Were they literally slaves to their sin?
What do we learn (or have we failed to learn) about kissing up to power as a result?

1 Like
55

Same reason streets are right next to every house where children play – it is part of their function. The parental command “do not play in the street lest you die” is a necessary part of the maturation process going from the toddler who is guarded from every danger to a child who starts looking after their own well being. But just because a command is given doesn’t mean that it is for all time and that the fruit doesn’t serve and important purpose in the future. And by the way, I do not believe in magical fruit any more than I believe in talking animals. The names of those two trees shout symbolism louder than anything else in the Bible.

Oh right! We tell our children not to play in the street because we want them to die! Right!

No… ridiculous!

Well God doesn’t do things which are bad. So they were necessary for the good of mankind. But they were only necessary because of the need to deal with something bad. So let’s examine each one…

  1. The snake became our adversary (Satan). Few would see the creation of the devil as a good thing. But I think it was necessary. We acted like we needed someone to blame, so God gave us a more reasonable target. Besides we had to learn that power and responsibility go hand in hand and you cannot pass blame without giving them power over you.
  2. Increase of the pain in childbirth. This is clue to what the tree of knowledge represents. This would only serve a good purpose if we needed something to make us take having children more seriously.
  3. Distortion of the relationship between men and women. It is also hard to see an upside of this. But after Adam threw love to the dogs by passing blame to both God and Eve, one can hardly expect there to be no negative consequences.
  4. Mankind had to live by the consequences of their own actions. We had to learn that passing the blame does not work.
  5. Death? Blocked from the tree of life. Physical death no. Spiritual death yes. The tree of life represents a relationship with God, which was severed.

WRONG!
1 Cor 15 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. (problem contrasted with solution)
Romans 5:12 Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned
Romans 5: 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

That is indeed an important question and I do not agree with most who equate sin with disobedience nor a failure to be perfect. I think sins consist of self-destructive habits and in this case it was A&E passing the blame for their own actions onto others. Children disobey and make mistakes… it is part of how they learn. But how can can you learn from your mistakes if you do not even acknowledge them?

And there is nothing in the text to support this notion that this required sin – an insane notion really. The activation of the psyche came in Genesis 2:7 “God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Inspiration is the divine breath. I quite disagree with this idea that there is no possibility of a psyche without a need for salvation. Sounds like an attempt to absolve us of all blame and salvation in Jesus requires just the opposite to acknowledge our fault in things. What you are suggesting is a negation of the gospel.

1 Like
56

Indeed. In fact the tension on these things goes clear on down to the root for us as Christians now, doesn’t it? Was it God’s will that nailed Jesus to a cross or was it human sin that did that? (Many here would chime in with the old Hebrew way of thinking about things and answer: both!)

It seems there is still the desired “wiggle room” in some of these stories for those who don’t like to picture God as the ultimate micromanager. Perhaps famines had something of a statistical regularity in those times and one was bound to come along eventually … and then the only “interference” God is obliged to perform is to see to Pharaoh’s dream and Joseph’s timely presence to get the interpretation right. Of course you have those on the other interaction extreme who are satisfied with nothing less than God steering each cosmic ray and making sure the right people all get born in their exact times to fulfill all history and prophecy. Since we will never ever resolve those dense thickets, most of us are happy to leave all that kerfuffle behind just trust that by whatever means was needed: “God’s got it all in hand”.

I still think that seeing God as outside of (“above” in a kind of way) time as well as space, so that all of time is ever present before God - is the most elegant way for our finite minds to conceptualize that God could see the whole tapestry and already know how all our threads, both good and sinful are woven together in it to accomplish his purpose. And our sin still costs us (and those around us) dearly even despite its failure to thwart God’s purpose, or even beyond that, its eventual use toward that purpose. Here’s a question to meditate on: What is Judas thinking right now? Most Christians, I guess, are quite happy to imagine Judas is burning in Hell right now. But if we can set aside such despicably anti-Christian sentiments for a moment, and imagine such as Judas among all the post-hoc conversations in glory - how would he now remember his actions on earth? Would the fact that he betrayed his friend sting any less for all the part that it ended up serving in a now most glorified event? Jesus does refer to Judas as “destined to be lost so that scripture might be fulfilled” in John 17 … but we also know that Jesus has a very storied relationship with lost ones. In any case, how will any of us remember our sins (if we remember them at all) when we are finally and fully redeemed?

57

And, I might point out, to contribute to your point here… Joseph’s brothers certainly perceived (rightly or wrongly) that they were indeed being cursed by God… or at least by somebody or something…

“ Did I not tell you not to sin against the boy? But you did not listen. So now there comes a reckoning for his blood.”

1 Like
58

Bharat, It occurs to me that you may appreciate much of the perspective of the Fransiscan mystic: Richard Rohr as he speaks of our western need to progress beyond dual thinking. He speaks of it in terms of 1st and 2nd halves of life here in this speech at Chautauqua. This is just a part 1, and you can listen to both parts if part 1 catches your interest. I would even listen through the Q&A as he still gives a lot of interesting responses during that too. He won’t spark much approval among self-appointed doctrinal watchdogs, but I’m gathering that probably hasn’t been a top concern for you either. One of the drums Rohr likes to pound on is to call us beyond thinking we need to be right about everything (a fault that permeates nearly all of western society and not just the sola scriptura crowd - though the latter caught the bug and fell hard). I’m embroiled in it too as you can probably tell, but Rohr’s exhortations are (I think for the most part) very wisdom-steeped and most importantly: Christ-centered. See what you think.

I did link this speech or one nearly like it some time ago that @MarkD really appreciated. This one may be a bit more recent than that one and may have some different content.

59

You know, I think the one you recommended before was a different one because the video quality wasn’t as good. But it was excellent. Anyhow I’m enjoying this one now so maybe whether I’ve seen it before will become obvious eventually. Some people have a memory like a steel trap; I’ve always compared mine to a steel sieve.

But big thumbs up for Richard Rohr. Definitely gives the impression of speaking from experience rather than conjecturing based on book learning, a nice blend of both really. From the date on the video it looks like the recognition of the pandemic hadn’t yet hit. Hopefully he survived all those unmasked, hugging people.

60

Well, he must have because here he is on April 13th 2020 giving this small interview related to his book “The Universal Christ”. Given his enthusiastic attention to all things including science, I imagine he is probably doing as well as anybody with everything right now.

1 Like