Re: [asa] Original Sin and Genesis 3

Phil said: *David, I think you are telling me about our Western
preconceptions but almost nothing about the text itself.
*
What "Western" preconceptions? Is relationality and fellowship with God not
part of the Eastern tradition?

Phil said: *It names the tree the "Tree of _Knowledge_ of Good & Evil," and
it says that God had the same kind of knowledge. So before sin, Adam didn't
have the knowledge of good and evil. What can be clearer than that?*

It's not clear to me why "knowledge of good and evil" necessarily means the
ability to discern between what is right and wrong. Just as a logical
matter, how would Adam have known that it was imperative to obey God's
command not to eat fruit from that tree if he had no notion of "right and
wrong?" The command not to eat implies at least enough cognitive capacity
to know that God has the authority to issue commands and that one *ought* to
obey what God commands.

Some have interpreted this phrase to mean "the ability to *establish* what
is right and wrong." "Knowledge," then, may not be a cognitive thing so
much as a reference to relationship, possession, and authority. This would
make sense, because in eating from that tree, Adam and Eve would be
asserting their right to determine autonomously what is right and wrong, and
thereby they would be usurping God's moral prerogative. This kind of notion
seems to offer a consistent harmitology -- as is reflected in the first of
the ten commandments, sin at its root is always idolatry, a placing of self
or something else in God's rightful place.

Anyway, before deciding on an exegesis of this phrase, I'd like to
understand (1) the nuances of the original Hebrew; (2) any cultural and
contemporary literary context for this kind of "knowledge"; and (3) how the
phrase has been understood in the tradition (including the Eastern
tradition). I don't think we can decide it just based on what the English
word "knowledge" might mean to us today.
On Dec 9, 2007 9:14 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:

> David O. said,
> *>> I think this gets too close to making God the author of evil.
> *
> I understand your concern. But exegesis has to come before systematic
> theology, and if we are having a problem in the systematics then we have to
> go back to the Scripture first. I don't expect the full picture to emerge
> overnight. For that reason, I haven't tried to present a complete picture
> of the Fall, but only a small part of it corresponding to the nature of the
> tree in the garden.
>
> David O said:
> * >>It also doesn't resonate with the Eden narrative (even if not taken
> literally). Before sin, Adam had fellowship with God of a sort that could
> have allowed him to avoid sin.
>
> *David, I think you are telling me about our Western preconceptions but
> almost nothing about the text itself. The Bible says very little about the
> nature of Adam's fellowship with God prior to sin. It says that God came
> walking in the garden _after_ Adam sinned, and so presumably God did this
> before Adam sinned, too. But how do you discern from this the nature of
> Adam's fellowship and what it would enable him to do after knowing good from
> evil? Even more importantly, how can you use this kind of interpolation to
> overthrow what the text clearly says? It names the tree the "Tree of
> _Knowledge_ of Good & Evil," and it says that God had the same kind of
> knowledge. So before sin, Adam didn't have the knowledge of good and evil.
> What can be clearer than that? Are you willing to throw that out because
> your preconceptions of the nature of Adam's fellowship -- not mentioned in
> the text -- don't resonate with it?
>
> David O. said,
> >> *personally I think Christian theology requires something more behind
> the Eden / fall narrative than the standard evolutionary story.*
>
> I wholeheartedly agree. But if our theology doesn't concord with what we
> know about the history of the world, then let's take another look at the
> exegesis first before we start worrying about the systematics. I suspect
> that the issue with the tree helps move us toward resolving the apparent
> conflict, but there is much more work to do.
>
> Phil
>
>
> Original Message-----
> From: David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
> To: philtill@aol.com
> Cc: christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com; asa@calvin.edu
> Sent: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 8:01 pm
> Subject: Re: [asa] Original Sin and Genesis 3
>
> Phil said: *But I think as creatures of time, bound in biological
> vessels and subject to the weaknesses and temptations of the body, and
> having the genetics common to other primates adapted to survival, then it
> would be impossible for mankind to remain innocent once he knows good &
> evil. *
>
> I think this gets too close to making God the author of evil. It also
> doesn't resonate with the Eden narrative (even if not taken literally).
> Before sin, Adam had fellowship with God of a sort that could have allowed
> him to avoid sin. Whatever else sin was, it was also a willful turning away
> from that fellowship with God. Man was not made to be separated from God;
> he chose that separation.
>
> I've yet to see any effort to account for "Eden" and sin from an purely
> evolutionary perspective that makes any sense. However, wherever, and
> whenever it may have happened, and whatever it may or may not have meant for
> other contemporaries of Adam -- all things we may nver know -- personally I
> think Christian theology requires something more behind the Eden / fall
> narrative than the standard evolutionary story.
> On Dec 9, 2007 6:39 PM, <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > David: I don't know! I'm struggling with the same larger issues that
> > you are.
> >
> > David O wrote:
> > >>It seems to me that if sin is a type of knowledge, then the atonement
> > would be an act of removing that knowledge
> > (end quote)<<
> >
> > The knowledge of good & evil was definitely not sin. God says, "man has
> > become like Us, knowing good & evil." So this knowledge is something that
> > God has, too, and hence cannot be sin.
> >
> > But I think as creatures of time, bound in biological vessels and
> > subject to the weaknesses and temptations of the body, and having the
> > genetics common to other primates adapted to survival, then it would be
> > impossible for mankind to remain innocent once he knows good & evil.
> > (Footnote: I do not think that genetics or any kind of weakness is
> > ultimately to blame, even they very well may have been present in early
> > man. It is not the existence of some characteristic of mankind that made us
> > become sinners. It was the absence of a positive thing, which I will
> > explain below. But for now, suffice it to say that mankind could not
> > possibly avoid becoming sinful once he could discern good from evil.)
> >
> > So to quote Paul,
> >
> > "I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin
> > became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life,
> > proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the
> > commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So then, the Law is holy,
> > and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. Therefore did that
> > which is good become a cause of death for me? May it never be! Rather it was
> > sin, in order that it might be shown to be sin by effecting my death through
> > that which is good, so that through the commandment sin would become utterly
> > sinful." (Romans 7:9-13, NASB)
> >
> > To apply what Paul wrote we have to remember that he is speaking about
> > post-Fall humanity, and so Romans 7 may not directly apply to Genesis 3.
> > But there are some ideas in common, I believe. The knowledge of good & evil
> > is like the Law, and it is not sin; it is "holy and righteous and good."
> > God didn't forbid the TKGE because it was bad (it was not!), but because we
> > could not bear it in our original state and it would cause our death.
> >
> > David O. wrote:
> > >>how would this theory of sin tie into theories of the atonement? Any
> > theory of sin has to relate to theories of the atonement. (end quote)<<
> >
> > David,
> > I am thinking along these lines: What we gain in Christ is more than
> > what we had before the Fall. What we gain is the life of God through His
> > Spirit in our hearts. The Holy Spirit in our hearts gives us the power to
> > obey God. That infused life of God is not just something we get for the
> > here-and-now to help us overcome temptation. It is the very essence of what
> > we are gaining for eternity. Our sinless perfection in heaven will never be
> > intrinsic to ourselves, but will always be essentially the life of God
> > within us.
> >
> > So what about prior to the Fall? Well, at that time, mankind was not
> > living in God's power at all. He was living in his own intrinsic power, and
> > was innocent and sinless because he did not know good from evil. But upon
> > learning the distinction of good & evil, and yet not having God's life
> > infused in his being, mankind inexorably (and instantly???) became sinful.
> >
> > So the Atonement is to pay for our sins that we have committed wilfully
> > now that we know good from evil, and to open the door for us to come into
> > the life of God. But in the garden, mankind could have chosen the life of
> > God first (Tree of Life), rather than choosing the knowledge of good & evil
> > first. If John the Baptist could be filled with the Spirit while yet in his
> > mother's womb, then we can see that knowledge of good & evil and rational
> > thought are not requirements to having God's infused life. If mankind had
> > grown to know God first, prior to knowing good & evil, then perpaps they
> > could have remained holy through God's power once they eventually came to
> > know about good & evil.
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>
> > !
> >
>
> ------------------------------
> More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail<http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>
> !
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 10 11:57:27 2007