Original Sin and the Fall-Series

[Soulfyre]

(coming soon!)

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Alejandro]

;D LOL.

I was hoping to have something to respond to! Oh well. I 'ought o get back to my studies anyhow. I shall expound upon my views of the Felix Culpa at a later time.

Christ be with you,
Alejandro

[Soulfyre]

I'm glad you used the term felix culpa, literally, felicitous or happy fault, Aleijandro . It is taken from the Exultet of the Easter Vigil in the Western Church in which are the words, "O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer!" Of course, the sin is not the object of rejoicing, but the effective redemptive work of our Savior and Lord, the Paschal Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, Jesus Christ.

Yet the nature of the original sin and its effects have been a subject of discussion and much debate in the history of the church. How may we understand it (for it is necessary to understand it in order to gain some insight into the magnitude of our salvation)? Perhaps it is first necessary to begin with the nature of humankind in its seminal existence in Adam and Eve. And in this beginning, we must consider what it means that Man, as man and woman, was created in the image and likeness of God. How are we to understand being created in the "image" of God, who is essentially "unimaginable"? And is the term "likeness" simply a poetic parallelism for emphasis, or does it speak of something different than "image"?

We must conclude that "image" refers to something other than corporeality, for Jesus Christ affirmed that

In Colossians, Paul describes Jesus Christ as "...the image of the invisible God..." (Colossians 1:15a), setting in juxtaposition the contrasting words "image" (or "icon") and "invisible", so that we are able to understand that something is meant besides corporeality. Traditionally, the imago dei has been understood to relate to what are often called the "communicable" attributes of God, those that identify the personhood of God--such things as emotions and will, a measure of autonomy, self-awareness, knowledge, creativity, morality, lordliness, fidelity, et al. These exist as human potentialities from birth, setting man apart from the rest of creation. Additionally, man was created to enjoy communion with God, who is spirit. Hence man stands as priest and king in creation, bridging the gap between the invisible and visible to administer and nurture creation, offering creation back to God in worship.

While many scholars argue that "likeness" is simply an "amplification" of image, noting that while Genesis 1:26 and 5:3 use the term "image and likeness" (the first pertaining to man being created in the "image and likeness" of God, the second referring to Seth, Adam's son being "in his own likeness, in his own image"), Genesis 5:1 simply states that "when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God." Orthodox tradition has conventionally understood "image" as that which a human posesses at birth, even if only potential, whereas "likeness" is that which is grown into through a relationship of love of, faith in and obedience to God. What then happened when Adam and Eve, forsaking God, submitted to the deception of Satan, the Serpent, and in disobedience to God's command, took to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, desiring to be "like God, knowing Good and Evil," (Genesis 3:5)?

In the Western traditions, the theology of sin (hamartiology) tends to be understood primarily as a moral or ethical lapse. While this aspect would not be denied in Eastern traditions, there is a sense in which the moral or ethical understanding of sin is derivative, not primary. Sin is not simply the violation of a divine moral code. It is the rejection of a relationship. In our eagerness to rail against the cosmic disobedience of Adam and Eve, we fail to appreciate the subtlety of the temptation set forth by Satan. Many sermons have been written on this subject, and many worthy points made from the Biblical text. Certainly the initial question of Satan, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?'" By implication, Satan was asking, "Did God really constrain your freedom by not letting you eat of every tree of the garden?" He was already planting the seeds of doubt by calling to attention not merely the prohibition, but its implications concerning the true freedom of mankind to be self-directing. Doesn't this same question lie at the heart of our culture today, seeing any possible restriction upon the autonomous freedom of mankind to be unacceptable, and impediment to our "self-actualization"? (continued)

In Christ,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Soulfyre]

Eve's answer was a classic illustration of Rabbinic Judaism. She replied, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.'" According to the command given to Adam, God said only that "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." It was ever the compulsion of Rabbinic Judaism to "fence the Torah"--to establish strict regulations of behavior to attempt to make sure that their followers did not engage in any activity which would put them in danger of violating the Law. Already either Eve or Adam had apparently expanded upon God's simple command. But such expansive handling of God's word is ever perilous, as we shall see.

At this point, Satan takes his greatest gamble. He denies God's word outright, saying, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you shall be like God, knowing good and evil." What, then, is Eve's response? Does she respond, as Jesus Christ did when tempted, with the very word of God? No. The only fallen creatures in all of creation were Satan and the angels who followed him into rebellion. But his subtlety was sufficient to encourage Eve to follow him, inverting the order of creation. She was "drawn away by [her] own desires and enticed," (James 1:14). She began to love the world as a thing in itself, rather than perceive it, and herself, in relationship to God.

John speaks of this in his first epistle, when he warns, "For all that is in the world--the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but of the world." In this case, John was not speaking of the "world" as God's creation, but of the "world" system as set against the kingdom of God. At this pivotal point, Satan has cast his kingdom against that of God. Satan, who would later offer Jesus Christ all the kingdoms of the world in return for worshiping him, similarly offers Adam and Eve a shortcut to God's likeness. Their likeness would not have to be formed, to mature, into the very likeness of God. Rather, by rejecting God's limitations, they could, in a single act, become "as God" themselves, knowing good and evil. "God has deceived you. God only wishes to suppress you. Why grovel before God when you can set yourselves as equal to Him? Why be priests, offering God's creation back to Him when you can have His creation for yourselves as gods?"

Alas, when Eve looks upon the fruit and sees that the tree is good for food [the lust of the flesh], that it was "pleasant to the eyes" [the lust of the eyes], and that it was desirable to make one wise [the pride of life], she ate, and gave to Adam to eat. But Satan had lied. For God Himself does not know good AND evil. For the word for "know" implies intimate association. It is also used of sexual union between man and woman in marriage, as it is used to describe God's intimate knowledge of us. God had no such relationship with evil. God is light, and in Him is no shadow or turning of darkness. Evil is a negation. It cannot be "known" as good can be "known", for it is a perversion of the good. "Evil" is not a thing in itself--rather, "evil" is to take what God has created and use it in a manner in which God has not intended, in the wrong way, or at the wrong time. Had Adam and Eve not already been enticed by the subtlety of Satan's sweet lies, perhaps they would have recognized their error. But their actions merely reflected what their hearts had already accepted.

Perhaps, when Eve first touched the fruit, and she perceived no dire consequence, she was emboldened to go further. And such is the danger of all attempts to "fence" God's word. For when no ill effects are felt when the fences we build around God's commands are torn down, we are all too likely to think that disobedience has no consequence. Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, and they, indeed, died. Oh, of course they weren't struck down like Ananias and Saphira (the only two Christians noted in Acts to have been actually "slain" by "the Spirit"). But they did, in fact, die. For in the Word, who was in the beginning, who was with God at creation, who was, and is, God, was life--and separation from Life is death. They whose consciousness had been consumed by the joy of fellowship with God in the wonder of His creation now became self-conscious, sewing for themselves coverings of fig leaves. When God came walking in the garden in the evening, Adam and Eve, whose sin bespoke separation from God, now hid from Him in shame. Adam and Eve lost that life-giving Spirit, breathed into them at their creation, and with spiritual death would come physical death. From dust they were made...to dust they would return. When confronted with their behavior, they engaged in the "blame game". Yet Adam and Eve had forfeited their right to judge, as God pronounced His judgement. (continued)

In Christ,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[Alejandro]

"Evil" is not a thing in itself--rather, "evil" is to take what God has created and use it in a manner in which God has not intended, in the wrong way, or at the wrong time.

That is so important. I fear that many Christians miss that, perceiving 'sin' as a creation in and of itself rather than the perversion it truly is.

And just a side note: I like that line about putting a fence around the Torah.


Good study.

Be blessed,
Alejandro