A close study of the account of the fall of man has done more to open my
eyes to the danger of tradition than any other study I have done. Those who
profess to take it literally have done much in making it mythological by using
it to teach lessons that have no basis in the text itself. Those who pride
themselves on a high view of inspiration and a literal interpretation distort the
Bible as much by their additions as modernists do with their subtractions.
There can be no justification for either, for they establish ideas that are passed
down and become traditions.
The result is that there are many people who are like the girl who was
asked why she believed in God and she said, "I guess it runs in the family."
People believe all kinds of things just because it runs in the family. As
evangelical Christians, we know that no one can be saved by inheritance. We
ought also to recognize that we cannot know truth by inheritance. Just as we
cannot take our salvation for granted because we have a Christian inheritance,
so we cannot take for granted that we understand what the Bible is saying at
any point just because of our Christian heritage.
Martin Luther questioned tradition and it led to the reformation, but he
must also be questioned. We cannot believe things just because we have
believed them. Our past only is, but it does not justify anything, but the fact
is, we all fall into the danger of traditionalism. I don't how many times I have
referred to the classic truth among Christians that Adam was a
double-crossing scoundrel who tried to pass the buck unto his wife and blame
her for the mess they were in. Then Eve followed this show of depravity by
passing the buck to the serpent. Each was unwilling to admit any blame for
the sin.
It is my conviction that a plain literal interpretation of the text will not
support this view, but it will show that to hold this view is to take issue with
God. I feel safer in standing with God and rejecting the popular view, but you
will have to judge for yourself as we examine the text. We are opening up the
oldest case on record, which is God verses Adam and Eve. God has
confronted Adam with a question: "Did you eat of the tree that I commanded
you not to eat of?" In verse 12 we have Adam's answer. He said, "The
woman whom you gave to be with me gave me of the tree and I did eat." The
traditional interpretation lays into Adam for this response from two angles.
First he had the audacity to throw the blame for his sin right back into the face
of God by saying it was the woman you have given me who was the cause of it.
Here is Adam blaming God and thereby becoming a perfect picture of an
utterly degraded and ungrateful child turning on his loving parent.
The second charge from the traditional view is that after he accused God
he turned on the woman he loved and put the rest of the blame on her. He was
demonstrating the total loss of his once noble manhood. The only problem of
this two-fold attack on Adam is that the evidence to support it is conspicuous
by its absence. Let me suggest what I see of the proper interpretation which
does not make Adam a hero, but it does have the virtue of taking the text into
account. There is no doubt as to Adam's guilt, but there is every reason to
believe that he is not guilty as charged by the traditional interpretation.
Look at the statement again and you will see that Adam responded by
giving a concise and accurate statement of the facts. God took it as just that.
It was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Adam was guilty
and he pleaded guilty as charged, and then gave the cause for why he did it.
He has been criticized harshly for doing so, but the record clearly backs him
up that it was the woman whom God had given him who gave him the fruit. It
is inconceivable to me that Adam is adding great sin to his record in this
statement. If the traditional view is right and Adam was throwing the blame
off on everyone else, why does God not even respond to this blasphemy with
the slightest rebuke? God takes it as a true response, and I choose to take it as
God did, and not try to make Adam guilty of horrible sins by reading in what
is not there.
When I read Luther's comment here that Adam added to disobedience
and unbelief the sins of insult and blasphemy I was amazed, for if this was true
Adam is committing sins far more willful here than his original sin, and yet
God ignores it and there is no mention of punishment for it. If Luther's
interpretation is correct, the most amazing thing about the text is that God did
not strike him dead on the spot. Instead, He apparently missed the
blasphemous implications all together, and He took it as a valid testimony, and
then moves on to ask Eve what she had done. God is taking Adam's sin very
lightly if the traditional charges are correct. The text says Adam's statement
is just a simple statement of fact without malicious intent toward God or Eve.
The New Testament bares witness to this as well. In I Tim. 2:14 we read,
"Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became the
transgressor." In spite of this, however, men go on accusing Adam of sins that
the text just cannot support.
The text does support the fact that his guilt and the folly of his fall, for
what could be a poorer excuse then saying he disobeyed God simply because
the forbidden fruit was given to him. It was as poor a defense as any sinner
could ever give, and Adam stands self-accused as guilty of sin, folly and
weakness. But to add to this other sins not in the text is going beyond
revelation. Leupold says of Adam's reply, "It is a reply that offers further
evidence of the complete corruption and contamination of all of man's nature
by his sin." He and others who are able to see all this corruption have
apparently not considered the consequences to which their view leads. If it is
true that Adam's statement here is a revelation of his total depravity, then
what was Adam before his first sin? If this simple statement can embody so
much evil, how much more evil must Adam have been to have disobeyed God
in the first place?
Adam must have been made totally depraved by God from the start if
Leupold is correct, for it was for his first sin that God punished him. God
seems to feel that this was his real sin and not blasphemy. How can it be said
that it shows total depravity when it is ignored by God, and it is treated as less
of a sin then his act of disobedience? If Adam could do the worst of his sins
without being totally depraved, but even in a state of innocence, why must it
follow that these lesser sins must be signs of total depravity? If a perfect man
can disobey God, it doesn't take a totally depraved man to tell a lie, or to pass
the buck. To me it is obvious that the charges against Adam are nonsense, and
even if there was the slightest evidence to support them, they would not prove
what they are prevented to prove, and that is that Adam was totally depraved.
This is a tradition, and the only reason to believe it is because it has been
believed.
Men came to this text with a preconceived system of theology, and they
see just what they have determined to find. When men get so clever that they
can spot abomination that even God himself misses, then it is time to start
questioning their judgments. You might think it is a waste of time to labor
such a trivial point, but how can that be trivial which changes God's Word
into man's, and influences the lessons taught to millions of children in Sunday
schools all over the world? To me it is worth the time we have taken if it
teaches us to be cautious and accurate with God's Word, and not allow
popular ideas and traditions to determine our interpretation. This passage
makes it clear that man does not need to be totally depraved to be totally out
of God's will, and that he who stands must beware less he fall.
As we move to verse 13 we do not need to go through the arguments again
to show that Eve is also only sharing the facts. She said the serpent beguiled
her and she ate. Would she have been more true to the facts if she had said it
is all my fault? Not at all, for there is no reason to believe she would have
eaten of the tree if the serpent had not enticed her. Leupold, however, charges
her with blasphemy also. Listen to his less than obvious observation: "All
true fear of God and love of Him has, of course, departed also from her heart,
for by laying the blame upon the serpent she indirectly also charges the
Creator for having let the creature cross her path."
Most of us probably would have missed this blasphemous implication had
it not been pointed out, but we would be in good company, for God missed it
too, and He took it as a statement of the truth and went on in verse 14 to judge
the serpent on the basis of her testimony. If Leupold's interpretation is
correct, the marvel of marvels is that God should actually curse the serpent on
the basis of the blasphemous testimony of two of the most depraved,
untrustworthy witnesses that ever lived. It is almost laughable, for it comes
close to doing what is charges Adam and Eve of doing, which is blaspheming
God, for it puts Him in as bad a light as can be, and pictures Him judging on
the basis of perverted testimony.
Notice that God says, "Because you have done this.." He does not ask if he
did this, but takes the word of Eve as pure truth. The testimony of Eve led
back to the first cause and God knew it, and He began judgment
acknowledging that sin did not begin with man, but was introduced by a
non-human into history. God has heard the evidence and takes it as a true
account, and begins judgment on the basis of it. Adam and Eve are not held in
contempt of court for blaspheming the judge and trying to pass the buck.
They are dwelt with on the basis of their sin of disobedience, which was
brought about by the enticement of the serpent. The serpent is judged first,
then Eve, and finally Adam. This was the order in which they sinned. They
were guilty of disobeying God and for this they were judged by God, but all of
the charges of men are completely ignored.
I refuse to hold Adam and Eve guilty for what God did not hold them
guilty for, and I refuse to read into this account a concept of total depravity.
The burden of proof rests on those who make these charges. They are to
remain innocent until proven guilty. They were guilty as God charged them,
but not as men charged them. This study should be a good example of the
danger of taking tradition at face value.
