 |
| Thomas Cole "The Garden of Eden" |
“There’s nothing wrong
with me. How could you say that I’m naturally sinful?” This is a question that
could well summarize how modern society views the concept of its own sinfulness.
But is this assessment correct? Can a person truly say that sin does not affect
them at the most basic level? Christianity’s account of man’s nature is unambiguous
in its assessment – there is something inherently wrong with man. Puritan
theologian John Owen well surmised that, “Human nature suffered an
indescribable disaster in the fall, so much that we might rather say that what
we call ‘human nature’ is really all that we know of the remnants of human
nature as it was intended to be.” [1] It
is my belief that if we accept all that Scripture teaches on the matter, we are
forced to come to a conclusion that may be unsettling to some. Scripture
informs us that man’s fall into sin was complete and spiritually disastrous.
Adam fell from being the pinnacle of creation, in perfect relationship and
knowledge of God, to being bound to a corrupt sin nature that affected every
part of his being and all future generations of mankind as well.
To understand the extent
of the fall it is imperative that we also understand the nature of man prior to
the fall. For without any basis of comparison any description of our sin nature
will fail. We will have no means by which to comprehend how far man fell and
the privation that sin wrought upon our original condition. From Genesis 1 and
2 we can gather a few clues as to the nature and place of Adam in creation
prior to the fall. We learn first that Adam was unique among all the rest of
the created order. Prior to the Adam’s creation, all other created things were
made by divine fiat with no deliberation among the godhead as to their nature
being recorded in Scripture. However, with the creation of man, the text
records that God said “Let us make man in our image and our likeness”.[2]
The sudden switch to a plural pronoun seems to indicate a discussion between
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as to the nature of man. Man was to be unique
because he was deliberately created to rule over all of the rest of creation
and to share some of the same traits as God. Arthur W. Pink comments “Thus, the
divine conference here conveys the impression that the most important stage of
creation had now been reached, that man was to be the masterpiece of the divine
workmanship, the crowning glory of the mundane sphere – which is clearly borne
out in his being made in the divine image.”[3]
Scripture maintains that
man was created in the image of God and that he did not lose this trait in the fall.
However, Adam was unique in his creation because even though he shared in the
communicable attributes of God that mankind still has today, he also had
additional traits that have been lost to us. Therefore, to fully understand
Adam’s nature we must look to future promises rather than at man’s current
state. Christians look ahead to the day when Christ will return and glorify His
people to the state of perfection held by Adam prior to the fall, and Scripture
affirms that the regenerate have the precursors of those traits which will
someday be perfected. From passages that describe this restoration, we can get
some idea of what Adam was like. Ephesians 4:24 says that we are to put on our
“new self, created in the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
Moreover, Colossians 3:10 commends us to “put on the new self, which is being
renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator.” From these passages we
can pull three traits that we will touch on and add one additional trait to
examine – Adam was created with righteousness, holiness, knowledge of God, and
a self-determining will.
Adam’s righteousness and
holiness are so closely related that some theologians place them together under
the label of “moral nature”. I believe, however, that there is enough of a
distinction between the two to treat them separately. We will consider the
righteousness of Adam first. Ecclesiastes affirms that “God made man upright”[4],
or righteous. Some equate being “upright” to an innocence in Adam by which he
was neither inclined to sin or righteousness. However, this seems to conflict
with the usage of the Hebrew word yaw-shawr,
which is translated upright, as it is used in other passages. Job 1:1 uses
the same word to describe Job as being blameless and upright before God.
Additionally, Psalm 25:8 uses it to describe God’s good nature by which He
instructs sinners in righteousness. Thomas Paul Simmons notes “Man’s original
moral likeness to God consisted of more than mere innocence…If innocence were
enough to satisfy this statement [Man was made in God’s image], then we should
be forced to conclude that every infant is born in the moral image of God, and
this the Scripture denies.”[5]
Indeed, it seems reasonable that when the author of Ecclesiastes says that man
was created upright, he means just that. Adam was capable of acting in
accordance with divine moral law because of a positive inclination in his
character. Not only were his actions righteous, but the very motives that drove
those actions were righteous as well.
Closely tied to Adam’s
righteousness was Adam’s holiness. While Adam’s righteousness was the means by
which he was able to actively obey God’s command, his holiness was the actual
purity of his being. Arthur W. Pink maintains that this was necessary in Adam’s
original nature because it was that “which fitted him for communion with the
Holy One. Holiness is not only a relationship, but a moral quality too – not
only a separation from all that is evil, but the endowment and possession of
what is good.”[6] Scripture is clear that
holiness is the means by which we will someday enter into God’s presence in
heaven[7], a
necessary condition of believer’s continuing sanctification[8],
and the trait which defines all the rest of God’s character.[9] It
seems almost necessary, then, that for Adam to be created in the image of God
that he share in this trait.
Righteousness and
holiness would have been of little use to Adam, however, without the ability to
know God and understand His nature and commands. It is therefore necessary that
Adam be created with some knowledge of God and His nature. John Owen calls this
knowledge “natural theology” and states that its extent and purpose was
twofold:
“In regards to this
innate law of God, two factors might be considered; first the law itself, or
the rule of obedience required by the creature, and, second, the creature’s
awareness and understanding of the law. The law’s supreme requirement is that
this excellent and great Benefactor, this supreme Ruler and rewarder, be loved,
worshipped, and feared… [Adam’s] knowledge of the law was then, in no
fundamental way, different from the essential nature of law itself. This
consisted of a health-giving [knowledge] by which he could walk and demonstrate
his obedience according to the law…[Adam] was furnished with wisdom and power
and the ability to demonstrate his obedience to God, and his intelligent
understanding of God’s will…”[10]
Adam’s knowledge then was pure and capable of a completely correct
understanding of God’s will. This is not to say that Adam possessed
omniscience, but that in all areas where his knowledge touched upon God’s
nature and will, it was correct in its understanding. Accordingly, any sin on
Adam’s part would be done in full knowledge of its rebellious character and
God’s displeasure of the act.
Finally, Adam was
created with the ability to be self-determining in his choices. Adam’s correct
and uncorrupted knowledge of God was in no way constrained. Rather, he was
given the ability to choose contrary to the will of God because he had the
“power to choose both an end and the means to attain it.”[11]
Consequently, Adam was open to influence from outside of himself and also from
internal desires. Indeed, this is how we see Adam fall into sin – by the
influence of Eve, and also, as we’ll see shortly, by his own desires. We must
be careful not to assume that because Adam was free to choose that the
inevitable result would be his sinning. As we have previously noted, Adam was
fully equipped by God to obey and grow in holiness and righteousness. Pink
correctly points out that, “Our first parents had that freedom of will, or
power to retain their integrity. This is evident from the clearly revealed fact
that they were under an indispensible obligation to yield perfect obedience to
God, and liable to deserved punishment for the least defection.”[12]
What then was the nature
of Adam’s sin? Theologians have held for centuries that the root of Adam’s sin
was pride and the desire to be like God. However, to limit Adam’s sin strictly
to pride belies the depth and evil of Adam’s act. In fact, Adam’s sin was a
complete denial of every good and moral trait he was given by God and the
refusal to submit to the revealed will of God in full knowledge of the
immorality of the act. Owen writes “it is plain that the primal sin…was an
attempt at total subversion of God’s order and a striving to escape from moral
dependence on God.”[13]
Accordingly, Adam broke not one command in eating the fruit, but instead
violated the whole law of God. Pink summarizes the full exposition of this idea
as given by James Ussher:
“He broke the first
commandment by choosing another ‘god’ when he followed the counsel of Satan.
The second, in idolizing his palate, making a god of his belly…The third, by
not believing God’s threatening, in that way taking his name in vain. The
fourth, by breaking the sinless rest in which he had been placed. The fifth, by
thus dishonoring his Father in heaven. The sixth, by bringing death on himself
and all his posterity. The seventh, by committing spiritual adultery, and
preferring the creature above the Creator. The eighth, by laying hands upon
that to which he had no right. The ninth, by accepting the serpent’s false
witness against God. The tenth, by coveting that which God had not given to
him.”[14]
 |
| Thomas Cole "Expulsion from the Garden of Eden" |
The consequences of
Adam’s sin were immediate and far reaching. Genesis informs us that upon eating
the fruit “the eyes of both were opened”[15]
and they were aware of their guilt before God. Suddenly, man was no longer
ruled by a perfect knowledge of God and the ability to obey. Instead, he became
subject to an imperfect and incomplete understanding of God through his
conscience. Dietrich Bonhoeffer begins his work on ethics by stating that this
“knowledge of good and evil shows that [man] is no longer at one with his
origin.”[16] The will of God is no
longer clear and unambiguous in man’s intellect. “[Man’s] life is now his
understanding of himself, whereas at the origin it was his knowledge of
God…Instead of the original comprehension of God and of men and of things there
is now taking in vain of God and of men and of things.”[17] While
the moral law exemplified in man’s conscience provides some indication of what
obedience should be given to God, it is a pail, anemic knowledge in comparison
to Adam’s knowledge of God before the fall. In fact, Scripture is clear that rejecting
God’s perfect knowledge caused Adam, and all future generations, to have “a
debased mind…filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness,
[and] malice.”[18]
The spiritual side of
man also underwent corruption in the fall. Man’s spiritual aspect, created in
righteousness and holiness to allow access to God, was no longer able to
function as such because it now carried the taint of sin. Scripture paints a
picture of this complete corruption that is bleak and unpromising. Sin is
described as a “defilement of body and
spirit”[19] that man cannot escape
because it “is written with a pen of iron; with a point of diamond it is
engraved on the tablet of [the] heart”[20].
So pervasive is sin that, “the heart of the children of man is fully set to do
evil”[21]
and “every intention of the thoughts of his heart [is] only evil continually”[22].
This is not a learned or acquired trait, nor is it something that he can escape
on his own. Man is spoken of as being conceived in sin, estranged from God from
the womb, and in rebellion against God at birth.[23]
He is “insatiable for sin”[24],
walking “in the stubbornness of his evil heart”[25]
until his death. And, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, man is willing to
stay in this condition. Christ, speaking of himself, says “the light has come
into the world, and people loved the
darkness [of sin] rather than the light because their works were evil.”[26]
We must be careful,
however, to state that Scripture does not teach that unregenerate man is
incapable of good deeds or virtuous acts. Christ affirms that even those who
are evil “know how to give good gifts to [their] children.”[27]
Nor does it mean that man is as sinful as he could possibly be because it is
possible for man to add to his sins.[28]
Pink asserts that man’s sin “has affected all of man’s being to such an extent
that he has no inherent power of recovery left to restore himself to harmony
with God, and that this is the case with every member of the race.”[29]
Additionally, while we are capable of doing good acts, these acts are
“discharged without any love for God, any subjection to His authority, or any
concern for His glory.”[30]
 |
| Piero della Francesca "The Death of Adam" |
A further consequence of
Adam’s sin is that it destroyed the means by which Adam was promised life and
blessing. Upon placing Adam in the garden, God warns of immediate consequences
for disobedience to his decree to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and
evil. “[B]ut of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it
you shall surely die.”[31]
It is implicit in this command that the converse is also true – if Adam obeyed,
then he would enjoy life in the presence of God and the blessings of the
garden. This has been referred to as the covenant of works because it involved
a conditional promise whereby Adam could maintain life and blessings through
obedience. Adam’s sin broke this covenant and resulted in spiritual and
physical death. However, the change in Adam’s state did not affect a change in
the terms of the covenant on God’s part. Instead we see the covenant expanded
and made clearer at Mount Sinai as God reveals the full nature of His law
rather than leaving man in a state of innate, moral law. Scripture affirms
throughout that fallen man is still subject to the covenant of works because
“the wages of sin is death.”[32] A
further consequence is that while Adam had previously had all the means
necessary to be obedient, in his new state he became incapable of obeying God
in any way that satisfied the conditions of this covenant. Adam was bound to
sin and, as we have previously noted, his every action was tainted by sin and
lacked the righteousness and holiness necessary to satisfy God’s requirements.
We have asserted
throughout that Adam’s fall affected him and all his future descendants, but there
are those who disagree with this position and assert that Adam’s sin was his
own and was not passed to his progeny. Rather, each man stands condemned for
only his own sin and is not counted as being unrighteous because of Adam. A
close reading of Scripture, however, indicates that this is not the case. Adam
held a place as the federal head of all mankind by which he represented all
future generations in his place and they would either bear his righteousness or
his guilt based upon his willingness to obey. The first indicator in Scripture
that Adam held this position is in Genesis 3:6-7 where Eve is the first to sin
by eating the fruit, but it is at Adam’s eating that they both realize their
guilt. A.W. Pink comments “Very, very striking is this. We do not read of any
change taking place when Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, but as soon as
Adam did so ‘the eyes of them both
were opened.’ This furnishes a confirmation of our previous statement that Adam
was the covenant head and legal representative of his wife, as well as of the future children which were to issue
from them.”[33]
Another text that
demonstrates the idea of federal headship is found in Hebrews where the author is
making an argument from the inferior to the superior. The author argues that
Christ’s role as priest is superior to that of the Levitical priesthood because
the Levites gave tithes to and received a blessing from Melchizedek, a priest
who typified Christ. Obviously, the
superior is one who receives tithes and gives blessings, but Melchizedek lived
centuries before the Levites were born or functioned as priests. How then, did
he receive tithes and give a blessing to them? The author answers that it was
through Abraham who gave the tithe and received the blessing and that Levi
“himself…paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of his
ancestor when Melchizedek met him.”[34]
In this case, Abraham functioned as the federal head for all of his
descendants. In giving the tithe and receiving the blessing he proved the
superiority of Melchizedek’s priesthood because all future generations were
represented as giving homage through him.
The final text we will
look at addresses the federal headship of Adam directly. Paul uses the federal
headship of Adam in the book of Romans to draw a contrast with the federal headship
of Christ. Paul states “sin came into the world through one man [Adam], and
death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned” and “by
the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners.”[35]
Theologian Wayne Grudem explains that the Greek term katestathesan, translated as “many were made” is in the form of “an
aorist indicative indicating completed
past action.” [36]
Accordingly, all men are not seen as becoming sinful through present action,
but instead because of the completed past action of “one man’s disobedience.” Grudem
continues that this is “consistent with Paul’s statement that ‘while we were
yet sinners Christ dies for us (Romans 5:8). Of course, some of us did not even
exist when Christ died. But God nevertheless regarded us as sinners in need of
salvation.”[37] Paul gives a second
example of federal headship in this passage in the atoning work of Christ. As
Adam is the means by which all men are accounted sinners, Christ is the
perfectly righteous sacrifice which “leads to justification and life for all
men... [for by] the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.”[38]
We are presented here a stark contrast. Christ has now become the federal head
of all those who are called into the family of God and he imputes his righteousness
to them in restoration of what Adam forfeited.
Even in this partial
assessment of man’s sinful nature we are left haunted and despairing at the
depths of our own wickedness. While we may claim that we are above our sin, or
untouched by it, the exact opposite is true and there is nothing in
unregenerate man free from the taint of it. What hope is left for man in this
condition? Man’s sole hope is found in Genesis 3:15 with the giving of the protoevangelion – the first gospel. The
promise of a future messiah that would undo Adam’s sin and provide redemption
to those in open rebellion to God. Fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ who,
by his atoning work, called out a people for himself and “reconciled [them] in
his body of flesh by his death, in order to present [them] holy and blameless and
above reproach before [God]”.[39]
[1]
John Owen, Biblical Theology: The History
of Theology from Adam to Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Soli Deo Gloria, 2009),
31.
[2]
Genesis 1:26
[3]
Arthur W. Pink, Our Accountability to God,
(Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 1999), Kindle e-book, 21.
[4]
Ecclesiastes 7:29.
[5]
Thomas Paul Simmons, A Systematic Study
of Bible Doctrine (Baptist Book and Bible House, 1936), http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Simmons/chapter16.htm,
(accessed May 3, 2012).
[6]
Pink, Our Accountability to God, 113.
[7]
Revelation 21:27; Matthew 5:8.
[8]
1 Peter 1:14-16.
[9]
Isaiah 6:3, Revelation 4:8 as examples of the superlative declaration of God’s
holiness.
[10]
Owen, Biblical Theology, 25.
[11]
Simmons, A Systematic Study of Bible
Doctrine, http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Simmons/chapter15.htm
, (accessed May 3, 2012).
[12]
Pink, Our Accountability to God, 28.
[13]
Owen, Biblical Theology, 26.
[14]
Pink, Our Accountability to God, 74.
[15]
Genesis 3:7.
[16]
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics trans. By
Neville Horton Smith, (New York, NY: Touchstone, 1995), 21.
[17]
Ibid, 29.
[18]
Romans 1:28-29.
[19]
2 Corinthians 7:1, emphasis mine.
[20]
Jeremiah 17:1.
[21]
Ecclesiastes 8:11.
[22]
Genesis 6:5.
[23]
Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Isaiah 48:8.
[24]
2 Peter 2:14.
[25]
Jeremiah 11:8.
[26]
John 3:19, emphasis mine.
[27]
Matthew 7:11.
[28]
1 Samuel 12:19.
[29]
Pink, Our Accountability to God, 161.
[30]
Ibid. 161.
[31]
Genesis 2:17.
[32]
Romans 6:23.
[33]
Pink, Our Accountability to God, 76.
[34]
Hebrews 7:9-10.
[35]
Romans 5:12, 19.
[36]
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 494, emphasis mine.
[37]
Ibid., 495.
[38]
Romans 5:18-19.
[39]
Colossians 1:22.
No comments:
Post a Comment