Adam & Eve, the Fall, Death, and Open Theism

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Genesis 2:17, "... but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (NASB)

Genesis 3 records that the day came when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit. Genesis 3 further records they didn't die that day.

Usually this fact is dealt with by talking about spiritual death, etc.

PERHAPS the passage is better explained with an open-theism mindset: God's plan was to punish the fall, if it happened, with sudden death. When the fall actually occurred, he changed his mind and granted mercy!

Wilson

[Ian Gentles]

Genesis 2:17, "... but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (NASB)

Genesis 3 records that the day came when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit. Genesis 3 further records they didn't die that day.

Usually this fact is dealt with by talking about spiritual death, etc.

PERHAPS the passage is better explained with an open-theism mindset: God's plan was to punish the fall, if it happened, with sudden death. When the fall actually occurred, he changed his mind and granted mercy!

Wilson#

Yea read that in Sanders book, still not sure if i agree with it, but then a lot of things i not sure about! lol

[Ryan Scott]

I think that act of grace is one of the greatest insights into God's nature. Instead of striking them dead, as was promised, God provided them clothes and continued life. God did not take away the consequences of their actions, but gave them another chance, the same chance God gives to all of us.

[Randy Wise]

Genesis 2:17, "... but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." (NASB)

Genesis 3 records that the day came when Adam and Eve ate of the fruit. Genesis 3 further records they didn't die that day.

Usually this fact is dealt with by talking about spiritual death, etc.

PERHAPS the passage is better explained with an open-theism mindset: God's plan was to punish the fall, if it happened, with sudden death. When the fall actually occurred, he changed his mind and granted mercy!

Wilson

Well God being God had to know the serpent was there. God simply chose to let eve and adam make the choice. To this day we know good and evil. What do you suppose it would be like not to know good and evil always existing like a innocent child? Look up to the heavens and know God made those things. How could a God that powerful and vast not know? People might argue how He knows, but somehow I think most believe He knows.

Randy

[James Diggs]

Usually this fact is dealt with by talking about spiritual death, etc.

PERHAPS the passage is better explained with an open-theism mindset: God's plan was to punish the fall, if it happened, with sudden death. When the fall actually occurred, he changed his mind and granted mercy!

I suppose you could apply open theism to the passage as an explanation if you wanted to, but I am not sure it is necessary.

Frankly I think “the fall” is a literary device in the narrative that shows us both God’s desired intention for us to be reconciled with him as a creature made in God’s image and how sin and injustice drives a wedge between us and God along with our ability to be true to the likeness of God as we are intended to be.

Another reason why a spiritual implication of death is important in the narrative of the passage, that I would not so easily want to dismiss, is the idea that life is as much about being connected to God as is breathing. I think the narrative gives us a real sense of this.

In my personal opinion applying open theism to the passage is unnecessary because I don’t think we are talking about a literal historical event about the first physical death of a human being (whether or not death might have been intended for that moment or God changed his mind making the consequence take hundreds of years to catch up to Adam as you suggest).

Of course I am prejudice here also by my belief in evolution which tells us that the cycle of life and death existed for billions of years even before humanity came on the scene; so that combined with what I think is the right understanding of the text as truth told in the symbolic language of a primeval myth has me concluding that “the fall” did not bring literal physical death into the world. So I guess I don’t see where God in reality might have changed his mind since this cycle of life seems to have been with us all along.

Again, spiritual death makes sense to me and I can see how (as my own hypothesis) the narrative could symbolically describe the reality of a spiritual fall in the context of evolving man. At what ever point God did something to separate humanity from the rest of creation and gave mankind an awareness of themselves and God I can see how this same awareness also brings with it the potential for selfishness, sin, and injustice.

Totally getting off on a tangent here, it is interesting that the human birthing process is notably more painful because of the size of the human head due to the advance development of the brain of a human child; or maybe it’s also the advanced nature of the mother’s brain that is more capable of being aware of pain on a more sophisticated and comprehensive level than animals. This fact compared to the statement about the curse in childbirth in Genesis is interesting because it certainly seems that the elevation of humanity brings with it a double edge sword of potential blessings and curses. It also brings with it the cognitive ability to choose if we will participate in living into this gift of a higher state of being as those made in the image of God or if we will instead choose to turn it in on itself and use it to become something very much not God like and a destructive and unnatural force in the world.

In the end (to further my non-confirmable hypothesis of the fall in the context of evolution) in the context of an evolving species using our higher faculties for selfishness and destruction was inevitable (the fall) and clearly shaping and reshaping mankind to live up to the image of God it was created for would be a messy process. I think God could see this coming even “before the foundations of the world” and knew it would take he himself moving into the human condition, living into righteousness in the face of sin and injustice as a human being, meeting us in the reality of human life and death, and breaking into new life from death through the resurrection, to solidify humanity’s ability to embrace and lean into living up to its potential as children of God.

Ok, sorry I got way off the topic of open theism as it might relate to the fall according to a literal reading of the creation narrative. But I do think that open theism fits easily into my hypothesis as well. God could see the big picture implications of shaping humanity in his image and the inevitable potential for this to turn inward on itself enough to know that he would have to enter into humanity itself in order to steer it true. I think this is consistent with the idea of open theism in which God can see enough to predict the big picture aspects of where things will go, but rather than existing outside time he is in time and space with us as it is going along and shaping us along the way toward his desired end.

[Roland Hearn]

Why is it so difficult to align a God that knows with a God of mercy? Why could God not warn and know and understand and offer grace? Just because we might find that difficult doesn't mean that God would. To me Open Theism says more about us then it does about God.

[Hans Deventer]

Why is it so difficult to align a God that knows with a God of mercy?

That isn't difficult, well, at least, not for me.

Why could God not warn and know and understand and offer grace? Just because we might find that difficult doesn't mean that God would. To me Open Theism says more about us then it does about God.

To me it tries to make sense of the Scripture passages where God is said to change His mind, and/or to regret what He had decided before.
And in doing that, I am moved by the passages in which He apparently allows people to change His mind. That, to me, is totally awesome. And the very reason why I pray, though accepting that He knows more than I do. Still, the answer may sometimes be "yes". And if it is "no", I'll still pray for a "yes" next time because I believe He may actually change His mind as He did in the times of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20).

1 In those days Hezekiah became ill and was at the point of death. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz went to him and said, "This is what the LORD says: Put your house in order, because you are going to die; you will not recover."

2 Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the LORD, 3 "Remember, O LORD, how I have walked before you faithfully and with wholehearted devotion and have done what is good in your eyes." And Hezekiah wept bitterly.

4 Before Isaiah had left the middle court, the word of the LORD came to him: 5 "Go back and tell Hezekiah, the leader of my people, 'This is what the LORD, the God of your father David, says: I have heard your prayer and seen your tears; I will heal you. On the third day from now you will go up to the temple of the LORD. 6 I will add fifteen years to your life. And I will deliver you and this city from the hand of the king of Assyria. I will defend this city for my sake and for the sake of my servant David.' "


Now I know of the interpretations that say Hezekiah's prayer wasn't a good one and things went downhill from that point on. But that's not the point I'm trying to make here. To me, this passage says something about the God I believe in. If you argue it rather says something about me, well, so be it. But for me, it says something totally awesome about my God. Some foretaste of how things will ultimately be: "Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear. (Isaiah 65:24).

You know, my deepest need is to be loved, to be valued (you may recognize that). Which means that I don't need a God who does whatever I ask of Him, but I do need one who takes me seriously. Because that is what it means to value me. And the Bible indeed does tell me about a God who takes me seriously, to the point that He may actually change His mind because of what I say or ask. I stand in awe of such great love. It does not diminish God for me, it makes Him so much more awesome, that I can only bow down, worship and say: "My Lord and my God".

[Jeremy D. Scott]

My favorite part of the creation story in relation to God's relationship with humanity is the naming of the animals (highlighted to me both by my father and Rob Bell):

"So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them..."

I get this picture of God enjoying watching what he's created, not knowing what they would do, but all the while letting the center of creation (humanity) play a part.

In regards to this whole topic (open theism), while he doesn't mention it by name, Bell makes some interesting hypothesized statements about the whole foreknowledge thing in his Everything is Spiritual talk. It can be purchased on DVD now:
http://shop.everythingisspiritual.com/

[Hans Deventer]

In regards to this whole topic (open theism), while he doesn't mention it by name, Bell makes some interesting hypothesized statements about the whole foreknowledge thing in his Everything is Spiritual talk. It can be purchased on DVD now:
http://shop.everythingisspiritual.com/

Have you seen the DVD and would you recommend buying it, Jeremy?

[Jeremy D. Scott]

Have you seen the DVD and would you recommend buying it, Jeremy?

I saw this talk live, and I bought the DVD the last time he was here for his newest "talk" - The God's Aren't Angry, and yes, Everything Is Spiritual was good both live and on the DVD.

[Hans Deventer]

I saw this talk live, and I bought the DVD the last time he was here for his newest "talk" - The God's Aren't Angry, and yes, Everything Is Spiritual was good both live and on the DVD.

Thanks! I'll order it, your recommendation is good enough for me. :fav18

[Betty Myers]

Consider Ephesians 2:1; "And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins."
That is the condition in which Adam and Eve were also after they disobeyed God. Dead, but alive physically. We were dead in our sin and, praise God, we are now made alive and are dead unto sin. Romans 6:11, "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Alive in Christ,
Betty Myers

[Randy Wise]

I don't believe Adam and Eve died a eternal death that day. They weren't given a immortal body and their sin kept them from that gift at that time. I still see God knowing the choice they would make and you don't have to convince me God is merciful and loving. I already believe in that God.

Randy

[Betty Myers]

Dear Randy,

Not an eternal death but a spiritual death, separated from God by sin. I believe Adam and Eve went into eternity as saved individuals.

Betty Myers

[Hans Deventer]

In regards to this whole topic (open theism), while he doesn't mention it by name, Bell makes some interesting hypothesized statements about the whole foreknowledge thing in his Everything is Spiritual talk. It can be purchased on DVD now:
http://shop.everythingisspiritual.com/

Got it today, watched it today. Need to watch it again and next time, I'll put on the subtitles. The guy talks fast!

As to foreknowledge, I'm perfectly happy to think like a flatlander if the Bible does so :basic03