Quote:
Originally Posted by coksiw
The text indicates that there was in fact some change in understanding right after eating the fruit.
Beside those texts I quoted that shows the change in understanding, texts like this one written by Moses indicates that there is a state of knowledge (or capability) before the fall that Eve was aware it was there.
[ Genesis 3:5-6 KJV] 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Also, God does not sin, nor the holy angels, yet the have that "knowledge of good and evil" that the man didn't know but had to "acquire". So "knowledge" in these passages in Genesis is not to mean experience, but to mean a new state of mind, or new understanding of something.
[ Genesis 3:22 NKJV] 22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, t o know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- |
The quotes I copied from Barnes' Notes adequately explain your points, I believe. They originally had a mental idea of "good and evil" by the mere existence of being given a command to obey. Therefore eating the "fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" did NOT result in the sudden acquisition of the
idea of good and evil, or the difference(s) between them.
So then what they acquired was indeed an experiential knowledge, it was a knowledge that was acquired by an experience (the experience of disobedience to the command). Once they had willfully disobeyed the command of God, they now had the knowledge of good and evil in all its moral facets, by a direct experience.
You say "God does not sin" and therefore conclude the knowledge they gained was not experiential knowledge by virtue of disobedience. Yet God knows as surely and as thoroughly as only God can know, what the consequences of disobedience (and of obedience) are, their effects and their workings. There is none wiser than God, in spite of the fact that God is morally pure and free from the taint of sin. The man and woman "became like God" in that they now had the knowledge of good and evil not merely as an abstract idea but as experiential reality. God likewise has the knowledge of good and evil not merely as an abstract idea but as an experiential reality. The DIFFERENCE though is that God has and does always do what is right and good, and does not sin. Therefore His knowledge of good and evil is holy, and is a characteristic of His divine attributes. Adam, however, has done evil, he has disobeyed. And thus his knowledge of good and evil, though experiential like God's, is nevertheless tinged with sin and is unholy, and is now a characteristic of his fallen attributes.
I think the so-called "Philippian Hymn" plays a role here:
Philippians 2:5-11 KJV
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: [8] And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. [9] Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: [10] That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; [11] And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Here, Christ recapitulates the act of Adam, but reverses the action and therefore the outcome. Adam attempted to seize "equality with God" by eating the forbidden fruit. Did he become equal with God? No, he fell, into shame and dishonour, and was cast out of the presence of God, and decayed and eventually died. Whereas Christ chose the path of obedience, and by doing so is exalted to the right hand of God, has immortality and glory given to Him.
All of this indicates to me that the knowledge of good and evil being discussed here is not just the mental awareness of what is good and what is evil, nor the mere mental awareness of the concept of "good and evil", but necessarily must be based on experience.
When Moses spoke of "your children who have not known good or evil", did he mean they were intellectually devoid of any concept of right and wrong? Or does he mean they had not been participating in the rebellions of their fathers in the wilderness, and likewise had not of their own volition engaged in obedience either, they being under the care and responsibility of their parents and so technically not actually liable for their own actions? They were essentially just along for the ride, not making their own decisions, and therefore not having experiential knowledge of their own moral character.
And I think that is exactly what is being described here in Genesis - the experiential knowledge of one's own moral character when faced with moral obligation, and the choice to obey or disobey, and the resultant consequences of either obedience or disobedience.
EDIT: Regarding Moses' statement, he says "in that day when your children had no knowledge between good and evil". Thus indicating they were simply too young to fully understand right and wrong, and therefore not morally accountable. Thus they not only did not have the experiential knowledge of good and evil, they apparently weren't old enough yet to have the basic mental knowledge of good and evil. In either event, either way, the knowledge of one's own moral character (which can only be obtained as a result of either the fulfillment of or failure to fulfill moral obligation, ie "experience") seems to be what is being discussed in Genesis.
Threaded Mode
