The law as curse

[Ploutos]

In my latest perusal of the New Testament, one thing that has stood out to me quite prominently is the theme of the law as a means of inciting sin in us. I noticed it in John 15:22-25, and of course most extensively in Romans 3-7, and this morning in Galatians 3. I notice now, more clearly than before, Scripture's emphasis on the way in which the law brings awareness of sin and incites our sinful hearts to ever greater rebellion. It seems as if, in a sense, the law's presence apart from Christ activates sin.

Has anyone drawn a connection between this theme and what happened in the Garden of Eden? Specifically, I'm thinking of two possibilities.

First, that God's command to not eat of the tree is sort of a "proto-law" coming before the first declaration of the "proto-gospel" at the end of Genesis 3: that his command not to eat incited the hearts of Adam and Eve to rebellion, and made sin come alive in their hearts.

Second, that the giving of the law was part of the promised curse - that as Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, so the giving of the law imparted that knowledge of good and evil and, without Christ, could only bring death in its wake as through this knowledge sin came alive in them and they died.

It's not something I've ever heard from anyone else nor have I come across it in any commentaries, so I am ready to dismiss the thought if it has no merit.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The covenant of works in the Garden, encapsulated in the "do not eat" command re. the ToKGE, should not be viewed as any incentive for a person disposed to holiness (as Adam and Eve were) to turn against it. The "increase the trespass" quality of law now is wholly a product of man's original sin and consequent misbehavior and culpable ignorance of what pleases God.

How someone who was endowed with a holy character and disposition, and the power to maintain it (but also with the capacity to lose it); how he lost it is one of the facts of life and revelation we must leave to the realm of mystery. Most efforts at coming up with a rational explanation for the facts (as opposed to simply accepting: this is what happened) end up leading folk toward ideas generally in keeping with Romanism or some other error.

God is not the author of sin, but essentially the proposal you include above (his law incited hearts to rebellion) entails he IS the author. Can't do that.

As for what the ToKGE was to teach--it was not for teaching at all by the eating of it, but the not-eating. Does God know the difference between good and evil, because he's tried both routes? God cannot do evil, neither can he be tempted to it (nor does he tempt anyone). In other words, Adam would gain increase of Godlike knowledge (still creaturely, analogical knowledge) of good and evil by obeying God (always doing right) and refusing to eat of the forbidden fruit if tempted (never doing wrong). By eating of the ToKGE, Adam only gained devilish knowledge of sin, evil, and death.

 

[Ploutos]

Pastor Bruce, thank you as always for being so kind but firm in putting me in my place as it were. Yes, I see that there is a fundamental difference between pre-fall man, disposed to holiness, post-fall man disposed only to rebellion. That makes a lot of sense now.

One question - in what way does my original posit suggest that God authors sin? That is certainly not something I want to suggest either overtly or by inference. It had traditionally seemed to me that there was some problematic curiosity that had Eve looking at the tree to begin with. Perhaps it's a cliched line of thinking that I need to reconsider but I have always inclined to think that the fall began well before she actually took a bite. But if that prior curiosity was a sin, I certainly don't consider God the author of it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

To put someone "in his place," I'd have to be his superior; I try not to regard myself as that, if in limited conditions I am functionally so. If I offer a correction, it is because I'm trying to 1) adhere to our common faith, 2) help others to think clearly, if I suppose I have an immediate advantage--one which I hope will disappear as knowledge is spread. I welcome thoughtful comebacks, that might make me think again on a subject.

I suggest your original idea would lead to considering God the "author" of sin for this reason: if "his command not to eat incited the hearts of Adam and Eve to rebellion, and made sin come alive in their hearts," and should we imagine law intrinsically does this in anyone not in Christ (Adam and Eve included in their state of creation pre-fall), this would mean that God gave the command in order that sin would result inevitably. This appears a logical entailment: that the divine command is the means to the fall, and not simply the occasion for the fall.

I am sure that a process of sinning, incorporating several "steps" on the parts of both Adam and Eve each for him/her self, led to sin giving birth to death in its finished product (as it were). By the time the forbidden fruit was plucked, masticated, and swallowed (we simply cannot pin an instant of time down as the moment sin went from conception to realization) our first parents had gone from happy and holy to sinful and miserable. Theoretically, was there some place in the process of sinning for the first time, when that process could have been aborted and sin averted? We are not meant to know (I don't believe it) when the ideas, attitudes, and choices they made went into irreversible damnable trajectory. Did Eve dwell too long in some curiosity? That, it seems to me, is unwarranted speculation; because other than her thinking response to the serpent's temptation, we have no such revelation.

 

[No Other Name]

It had traditionally seemed to me that there was some problematic curiosity that had Eve looking at the tree to begin with. Perhaps it's a cliched line of thinking that I need to reconsider but I have always inclined to think that the fall began well before she actually took a bite.

This struck me as interesting here. I have always thought the fall (or losing Eden accompanied with the introduction of death and original sin within offspring) began when Adam - as federal head and covenantal ruler under God - took the bite (or desired to take the bite as you point out here).

 

[Ploutos]

Thank you for these thoughts, gentlemen. I appreciate the insights and edification.