Thanks Marilyn, for a very succinct essay on how Christians arrived at the doctrine of Original Sin. Your statement:

Elaine Pagels takes issue with this theology. In her study of the Judeo-Christian idea of the fall, Adam, Eve, and the Serpent (New York: Random House-Vintage, 1989), she labels the belief that Adam tainted us all, thus condemning us to death, as “empirically absurd” (127), but she does so as one examining the doctrine from an academic rather than a Christian viewpoint.

The academic and historical account was essentially described in your article. Must one choose either an academic or Christian perspective? Or they antithetical? Or, should we understand the roots of such a doctrine? In her book "The Origin of Satan" she beautifully illustrates how the Christian idea of Satan, Lucifer, and evil has led to the demonization of any other group to focus on the difference--the "us" and "them" disctinction which began with the antisemitism in the NT writings and continues to this day.

Certainly, Karen Armstrong's statement ("A History of God") writes that

"A religion which teaches men and women to regard their humanity as chronically flawed can alienate them from themselves....A religion which looks askance upon half of the human race and which regards every involuntary motion of mind, heart and body as a sympton of fatal concupiscence can only alienate men and women from their condition....Western Christianity never fully recovered from this neurotic misogyny."

Thanks to Augustine, the greatest proponent of this diablogical ideology, which has been a major Christian doctrine since him, we are cursed and damned by this position, which originated long before Christianity in the "pagan" cultures.

A doctrine so taught and ingrained in the mind causes it to become very pliable to accept without questions that the death of a Jew is the absolute and only way to achieve salvation. It's really no different than the vacuum cleaner salesman who throws manure on your carpet and then tells you that he has the only sure method that will it make it a "good as new."

Shouldn't we rightfully question such a dogma that has such foul roots?

should it be our story or our understanding about the
human being fall correct?why did the sin enter at the world
by the man,whether whom has made mistakes had been the woman?
did adam really sin or became sin for eve?was adam against
god or adam was triyng to take out eve of satan's hands?
adam was a sinner or mediator as same as jesus do for us before of god?if has been the woman that brought sin inside
this world ,why the bible says,the sin entered in this world
for one man adam?has adam eaten the fruit because loved eve
too much?the bible says;the woman has sinned not the man.
by any chance;some body would be able to help in these questions?
i am hoping for replys soon
thanks
laercio

First: Thank you, Marilyn, for an excellent commentary. I so appreciate your scholarship and approach to this topic. Our failure to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum and that it is not a univocal book should be kept in mind when we study.

Second: Laercio, would it help to know that the Hebrew word "adam" is generic for human being? As in Micah 6:8, "He has shown you, oh human, what is good..." and that the Greek word for man, anthropos, means humankind or everyone?

Being able to get one's mind around the concept that it is the human race that is separated from God and that the precipitating cause was bilateral, not just a male or female problem, will help answer a lot of questions.

Also knowing that the Bible writers were culturally conditioned by a patriarchal society and that the church fathers and theologians who formed church doctrine also had a decided male bias as they wrote should temper the approach taken to these writings today.

In preparation for this week's lesson - I read again Deut 32. This is a great epic poem having to do with the beginnings of things - creation and the fall. Is there anyone out there who would care to comment on this passage?

Marilyn

The King James Bible was translated in the Puritan era.
The operative verse in Romans addresses your essay much better than your concluding sentence:

Paul writes, as his 1611 translators tell us, "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Rom. 5: 19

It is not the fall of Adam that gives assurance but the Finished work of Jesus Christ! Salvation is in an alien Righteousness--that of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The classic SDA position is that Grace is just training wheels until a "Final Perfect Generation" ride into Heaven on their own power."

I don't believe you meant to imply that if Adam fell, we can stand alone--given time and circumstances of an end-time challenge. That issue has plagued the Church for 5 generations. Tom

Tom Z's bold statement needs clarifying... is "The classic SDA position is that Grace is just training wheels until a "Final Perfect Generation" ride into Heaven on their own power."?
And does "classic" mean "historical" or "preferred"?
Here is Aus I do not know of a church community that would endorse such a graceless view of the Christian life. My own church is certainly gospel centred, and grace focussed.
If Tom's statement was ever true (and I know it was!) surely such a self-centred, homocentric perfectionist view of salvation is now abhored in maintstream (and hopefully all) Adventist Churches
Peace and Love

We are on the horns of a dilemma...

Is the story of "The Fall" historical, meaning: is it a factual account of what transpired - in a real garden, in real time, with real consequences for everyone of us.
Literalists would demand that we accept this view, and they will even tell us how long ago it all happened.

Is the story of "The Fall" alegorical, meaning: is its purpose to explain the nature of sin, the nature of man, the character of God, and the plight of everyman?

Our position on such basic theology / philosophy will determine our response to "The Fall". However, how we blend the story and our understanding of its meaning may not be important:

What ever we think, and however we expain the sketchy details, it really is "all about Jesus"

Shabat Salom!

adam has not made mistakes,adam became himself sin for eve.
adam has eaten the fruit because he loved eve as same as god
love us.do you think so,eve has deceived adam giving the fruit
to him eat,i do not think so,nor eve has been deceived neither
adam eigther,each one of them knew about satan's fall,and
they knew the only place which satan could remain in our
planet,and this place was that tree which was in the midst of
garden.satan could not be riding around in this world,satan
had not right to ride around this world,but somebody released
satan of that place,and whom has made this,eve released satan of that tree,because adam represented all the human beings
and adam had the jesus character and i am sure he has made
the correct thing,he ate aware of his mistake,but adam has eaten for eve's sake.adam had not been against god,adam
has made mistake because loved eve too much like god loves me.
i should like that every one reading again the story of man's
fall can conclude who adam became sin for eve.
think well and reply please
laercio

Iaercio

Is it theologically correct to equate mistake with sin?

Adam acted deliberately and knowingly, so it wasn't a mistake
it was intentional, albeit a case of poor judgment--fully aware of its consequences Adam acted knowingly not mistakenly.

WD

By classic, I infer that the end-time chapters of the book Great Controvery define a final perfect generation--a thesis expanded by M.L. Andreasen, supported through the 1980"s by the editors of the Review and continued in the paperback "Why Jesus Waits" still in print. This concept forms the core SDA
eschatology. Tom
of

P.S. WD

I left out a key element--a call to dinner interrupted my blog. The issue that prompted my entry was the concept of Original Sin. The Classic (Review/G.C.) position in the Glacier View era and continuing quietly: there is no such thing as original sin--thus the possibility of a perfect final generation. The Brinsmead position was that the Cleansing of the Sanctuary in Heaven was accompanied by a Cleansing of the Soul Temple and the removal of Original Sin--making a Final Perfect Generation possible.

The classic SDA position has two components: 1. A denial that Christ's Work was finished at the Cross even though He cried out: "It is Finished!" The SDA position is that Christ's work is not finished until the final name is cleared in the books of heaven.(The Pre-Advent Judgment--formerly the Investigative Judgment) 2. The existence of Original Sin: Dr. Edward Heppenstall took a great deal of heat because he supported an Original Sin concept even after Glacier View.

Of course, these issues have been muted until now: The Atonement and the Cross of Christ Quarterly--makes the issue
open once again.

As for me, I take the Pauline view, now and until the return of Jesus Christ as Lord of Lords and King of Kings! Tom

I am reminded, of course,of the account of the fall in Milton's Paradise Loss. Despite his bent toward mysogyny, his portrayal of Eve bowing low in obeisance to a tree is a masterful depiction of what sin does. In attempting to rise above the sphere God placed the first humans in (and a spacious,elevated sphere it was), they fell to a position lower than a tree. (Till the ground...thorns and thistles....try to master nature, you will never succeed....)

The Genesis account of the fall, combined with the patriarchal stance from which the Biblical writers penned inspired thoughts, have for far too long provided society an excuse to devalue women.

So,are we reading a literalaccountor a philosophical statement? Adam stood passively by while Eve listened to the serpent. Why didn't he act? I think attributing noble motives to him in his passivity and especially in his active, deliberate sin is an attempt to portray him as somehow less to blame than Eve, even though Paul says that "by one man sin came into the world."

Adam and Eve (humans) were jointly responsible. So Jesus extends the atonement to humans--men and women. Whether a literal or archetypal portrayal designed to explain the origins of evil (and I don't see the two as mutually exclusive), the story doesn't end with the fall. It reached its climax at the resurrection, and will reach its conclusion with the second coming.

Thank you, Tom, for your response to Laercio.

I would also add that Adam's decision to place his relationship with Eve before his relationship with God is at the very least an idolatrous one. It smacks of pride in his own saving powers and condescension toward Eve as well. If what you are saying is true, Laercio, [that Adam becomes sin for Eve] then Adam sets himself up as Eve's savior--assuming in his own eyes the role of God and repeating the sin of Lucifer.

Adam's reaction when faced with a God who gently seeks him throughout Eden is even more evidence that his choice was not the right one--using Eve as a scapegoat for his own sin is hardly the behavior of a godly husband walking in Heaven's loving path.

rb,whom has said you that was eve with adam when she made
sinned.eve was alone,adam was not there,as adam had eve as
value one and was willing to die for her.adam knew about
what would be the consequences of the eve's sin and adam put
by side eve eating the fruit.you do not read on none place
in the bible adam talking to satan,you read only eve talking
to satan,adam's attitude has been as same as christ's attitude.adam acted to save eve,he was not in passivity before
eve's situation,adam reacted like jesus reacted,dying for me
and for you at the cross.and i should like to know how somebody can call justice some one hanging at cross,is this justice;adam did not devalue eve adam value eve too much
putting himself in the same condition.there is not justice in
some one innocent hanging in the cross ,it is injustice i am sure about it,i want that some body prove who jesus dying at the cross this is justice,of course whether someone would be able to do it.i am not devalue women,i value them,if them suffering too much prejudice has been for consequences of the sin.and behold,the sin did enter in this world because
adam ate the fruit, whether adam had not ate the fruit the sin
would be not here.if you think different study better and
conclude yourselves.think and reply me
thanks
laercio

suffer many things

Laercio

As RB pointed out: Adam's subsequent behavior--hiding, passing the buck etc gives the lie to your attributing high motive to Adam. Eve was "conned". Adam was deliberate--both were guilty not only as charged but in their behavior in hidding from God. The theological issue is simple: Adam was the "federal man". Satan then assumed that role. Jesus Christ redeemed that position and freely offers restoration to Adam, Eve, and all their issue. (See Job) and read Romans. Tom

laercio

As I read your comments it is clear you are not going by the Bible account but something else. I am guessing you are going by Ellen White's version. In it Eve sins even before going to eating the fruit because she violates the instructions of God given by angels for her not to leave the side of Adam. As I recall she also tells us that Adam ate the fruit because of his deep love for Eve.

It is fiction. Ellen White's version is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that in the story Adam was with Eve:

"(Gen 3:6 NIV) When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

I know it is hard to know what the Bible really says when it is been reinterpreted and added to by traditions and for Adventists Ellen White's speculations. But that is one of the things we really have to do if we intend to grow in understanding rather then becoming bogged down in the accepted errors of the past.

rc,my friend: do not you think like many people that adam and eve have been created for god on the friday and rested the
sabbath and sunday morning made sinned;or do you believe that way;beacause whe you reading the bible looks that adam and eve
have made sinned soon after been created.and about account of
cain getting wedding so fast,there were only four people in this world;how did he get married so fast;nobody knows how many time had gone until the couple made sinned ,
there was no time there because they lived at the eternity.
but reading the bible looks so fast the man's fall and the
cain's wedding and every thing else.and adam hiding him self
after sinned was because now he was like eve,he was in the same condition of eve felling the same blame like eve felt.
tom my friend behold for the adam's behavior before eating
the fruit and not after do it,none place in the bible you see
or find adam talking to satan only eve had talked to him,is it
nothing has happened fast how many people think ,but the bible
telling about the facts and not about the time which happened
the facts.rc,and whether ellen has made some mistakes in her
accounts is because she was limited like moses,like job also
was limited in their accounts.and i do not call mistake i call limitation,because i do not leave trusting moses because he said god hardened the pharaoh'heart.and nor i do not leave
trusting job because he said the lord gave and the lord taken
away,blessed be the he name of the lord.has been not god who
has taken away his goods, sons and every thing else but satan.
now we do not have sorry ,because every one knows clearly about the god ,because that one who puts in our minds is difficult to know god call satan,and we know is not difficult
to know god beacuse he is in the alive word called jesus,
study my friend and do not let old tales inside your minds.
take out each old tale.
laercio

OK laercio clearly you believe what you believe no matter what the texts say. It is why so many people try to fill in the blanks in the story to make it seem literal to them. They do it by creating all these details and then using those fabricated details to explain other things in the Bible. It is called eisegesis and frankly it is entirely useless.

rc

Well said. Tom

The idea that Adam did what he did because of his "great love" for Eve, can be found nowhere in the Bible text. What's love got to do with it?=) As others have said, pure eisegesis!

The text simply implicates him with her in rebellion against God's word. It can be seen as the state of humanity in totality, male and female, etc. Their act led to a race at odds with God, with each other, and within ourselves... a race totally subjected to the curse of sin and death.

The curse can only be reversed in and through the second Adam. Thanks be to God for Him!

Thanks...

Frank

The story of Adam and Eve only became "the Fall of Man" by ancient interpretive assumptions; the book of Genesis says nothing of the kind. Neither is there any mention of sinless existence in Eden, nor is the serpent identified in the story as the devil, he is just a talking snake. All these are acttually the creation of ancient interpreters.

The entire concept of the "Fall of Man" depends on such a Fall actually having taken place; but it is not there in the biblical text itself, only the text as it interpreted. On such ancient interpretation has Christian doctrines evolved. There are many erroneous assumptions that have been been wholly the creation of ancient intrepreters and the Christian world has bought them; e.g. there is not a single verse in the book of Genesis that actually says that Abraham believed in the existence of only one God. There is not even a hint, in the Bible's much later depiction of him, that Abraham's beliefs differed IN KIND from those of the people he encountered or even that this was ever a subject of discussion. He is presented as worshiping his own God (and perhaps as worshiping other as well), but not as an exponent of monotheism. Scholars have noted the absence of any reference to Abraham in the writings of Israel's eighth-and seventh-century prophets; they did know about other traditions but not a word about Abraham until parts of Isaiah usually dated to the sixth century or later. This is most surprising for a figure who appears to be so central in Genesis. If he were well known as an ancestor of Israel in the eighth of seventh century, why did not one of these prophets refer to him?

When one investigates many of the Bible's stories, there are more questions raised than answers. Central to the Christian theme is the Fall of Man, yet when and where did it originate if it came much later than the Genesis record?

Perhaps we name the story improperly as the fall of man and should name it the introduction to the questions. Because that is what the story does, we question God we question nature we question why we are what we are and why we need a God at all. The story presents the world as we see it thorns and death and all. It begins a history of a quest for relationships with God and appropriately ends with Christ, God with us.

I find great comfort and assurance in Frank's closing line. Tom

It's all in how we approach the Bible. We dare not subject it to the same critical analysis as all other writings of the same period, but give it authority that characterizes how we use it.

If it is viewed as God's direct word, unalterable, inerrant, infallible, and the last word on all of life, we have used it in a manner not intended by the Hebrews who wrote it no earlier than 1,000 B.C. and finalized it in the last two centuries before Christ. The Septuagint was the Bible used by nearly everyone during Christ's time as few spoke Hebrew in which the scripture was originally written.

It was written just as most origin stories: to explain, in their understanding, how the world came to be as it was then. Because no one was present at either Creation and orally told stories were the only form of transmitting from one generation to another, they were interpreted and reinterpreted and so we have no originals, only what was finally encased in scrolls during Ezra's times.

We would not take literally any of the other nation's origin stories, but when we read them there is clear evidence that many had a common source and are similar in many ways. Even the Hebrews interpreted their scriptures throughout the years before writing them but it was left to Christians to solidify and literalize them to such an extent that their original intent has been lost in much of the scripture.

We have given our own interpretation to others' writings and in so doing it has gone far from what was their original intent and purpose. The Hebrews called it "Moses' Law" and the remaining scripture was the "Prophets" and the Wisdom books and the Writings.

We too often forget that for most of Christian history, even into Adventist history, the apocryphal books were contained in most Bibles and was used along with the Bible for exhortation and inspiration. The decision to include or exclude certain writings is of very late origin and one can find, even in our Bibles today, references to these apocryphal books. Were they also considered "God's Word" and "inspired"? Man made the decisions not only on which books to include in the canon when it was formalized, but on what basis? Were all these decisions also inspired?

Elaine

Excellent question: But inspired or not--it matters most on how we read them and how we behave having read them! Some of the most horrific and most of the most gracious acts have emerged from the same passages. Tom