Genesis 3:22 and mankind's sinful nature

[37818]

This is a fundamental Biblical truth which historically has been void from theological understanding as to the reason mankind has a sinful nature.

Fundamentally the knowledge of good and evil is God's knowledge.

After God created the man He placed the knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the form of an edible fruit of a tree, Genesis 2:9.

A first commandment God gave the man, in Genesis 2:16-17, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

After man disobeyed this commandment, both man and his mate, mankind would now have God's knowledge of good and evil from conception. In mankind the knowledge of evil would be in mankind, mankind's sinful nature. Genesis 3:22, ". . . And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: . . ."

God is infinitely good. Man and his mate were created good. But man is finite in being made good. The knowledge of evil is the cause of mankind's sinful nature. And so in conception are conceived with a sinful nature.

 

[JonC]

The only correction (which may seem minor but is very important to the overall biblical narrative) is that God did not place the tree in the Garden where Adam existed. God took Adam from the place where Adam was created and placed Adam in the Garden (Adam, not the Tree, was the foreign element).

 

[37818]

The only correction (which may seem minor but is very important to the overall biblical narrative) is that God did not place the tree in the Garden where Adam existed. God took Adam from the place where Adam was created and placed Adam in the Garden (Adam, not the Tree, was the foreign element).

After God created the man He placed the knowledge of good and evil in the garden in the form of an edible fruit of a tree, Genesis 2:9.

Genesis 2:15, ". . . And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. . . ."
This preceded,

A first commandment God gave the man, in Genesis 2:16-17, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

 

[JonC]

Genesis 2:15, ". . . And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. . . ."
This preceded,

I do not want to hijack your thread, so please let me know if you think this post off topic. It is something I find significant, but just a comment (not something to start another thread or tangent on this one).

Why did God take Adam from the place he was created and place him in the Garden?

I find a parallel (inversely) in the temptation of Christ (especially given Jame's explanation of how sin occurs).

 

[37818]

Why did God take Adam from the place he was created and place him in the Garden?

That is a matter of interpretion. On this point I have no opinion. Eve was created in the garden.

The purpose of this thread is do to, as far as I can find out, the total absence of knowing the knowledge of evil being the cause of mankind's sinful nature.

 

[JonC]

That is a matter of interpretion. On this point I have no opinion. Eve was created in the garden.

The purpose of this thread is do to, as far as I can find out, the total absence of knowing the knowledge of evil being the cause of mankind's sinful nature.

Given Jame's explanation of sin, I'm not sure that it is fair to say there was a cause to man's sinful nature.

Instead it seems that Adam was placed in a position where he was tempted and chose his own desires over obedience.

 

[37818]

Given Jame's explanation of sin, I'm not sure that it is fair to say there was a cause to man's sinful nature.

Instead it seems that Adam was placed in a position where he was tempted and chose his own desires over obedience.

Then Pelagian would be correct.

 

[JonC]

Then Pelagian would be correct.

No, quite the opposite. It would disprove Pelagianism. It would mean man does not have in his nature what is required for righteousness. (It would mean that man was created in the image, but short of the nature, of God insofar as righteousness goes)

 

[37818]

No, quite the opposite. It would disprove Pelagianism. It would mean man does not have in his nature what is required for righteousness. (It would mean that man was created in the image, but short of the nature, of God insofar as righteousness goes)

Either Adam and Eve gained knowledge of evil which they had not had or they didn't.

 

[JonC]

Either Adam and Eve gained knowledge of evil which they had not had or they didn't.

They did. But their acquisition of knowledge (per your posts thus far) constitute a realization, not a change, in nature.

 

[37818]

They did. But their acquisition of knowledge (per your posts thus far) constitute a realization, not a change, in nature.

Then no change in nature would mean the nature they have to be the nature in which God made them.

 

[JonC]

Then no change in nature would mean the nature they have to be the nature in which God made them.

It would, depending on how you define "nature". Scripture tells us a change did take place. Their "eyes were opened". Is this what you mean?

 

[37818]

It would, depending on how you define "nature". Scripture tells us a change did take place. Their "eyes were opened". Is this what you mean?

Prior they did not know the knowledge of good and evil. God warned Adam, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The Serpent told Eve, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

 

[JonC]

Prior they did not know the knowledge of good and evil. God warned Adam, "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." The Serpent told Eve, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

I'm not sure anymore that we disagree.

If you are equating the "sin nature" to a knowledge of good and evil......maybe we agree.

 

[37818]

If you are equating the "sin nature" to a knowledge of good and evil......maybe we agree.

That is the point of this thread. And seems to be vacant in other writings on the sin nature of man do to Adam's sin.

 

[JonC]

That is the point of this thread. And seems to be vacant in other writings on the sin nature of man do to Adam's sin.

I pretty much agree. The only issue to be reconciled is the knowledge coming as a result of Adam's sin.

Do you think the knowledge came about by the fruit or by Adam eating of it (was it the fruit or the transgression that wrought a change)?

 

[37818]

Do you think the knowledge came about by the fruit or by Adam eating of it (was it the fruit or the transgression that wrought a change)?

I do not think it was symbolic. I am persuaded it was the acquiring the said knowledge by the eating of it. The difference between our infinitely good God and man being finite being, they were murdered in eating. Genesis 3:4 [Genesis 2:17. John 8:44].

 

[JonC]

I do not think it was symbolic. I am persuaded it was the acquiring the said knowledge by the eating of it. The difference between our infinitely good God and man being finite being, they were murdered in eating. Genesis 3:4 [Genesis 2:17. John 8:44].

I don't see that they were murdered, but actually became akin to murders with the certainty of death. Death came into the world not by the fruit but by the transgression.

Genesis speaks of two fruits, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the Tree of Life.

I have always equated the Tree of Life with Christ. But do you believe there is a literal fruit that we will eat which will give us eternal life?

 

[37818]

I don't see that they were murdered, . . .

Who did the Devil murder? John 8:44,". . . He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, . . ."

 

[kyredneck]

I have always equated the Tree of Life with Christ.

Agree, 'figuratively' is Christ. Pink covers that nicely.

The 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' being a 'figure' of the law, I take 'die' in the Genesis account of the fall in the sense that Paul meant:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:
9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; Ro 7