WATCH or READ - The Edenic Law and the Events in the Garden

What we are going to consider over the course of the next two days is the reason why man needs redemption and how God has offered it to mankind. Our focus is therefore on the Edenic Law and the events in the garden. It’s important for us to revisit these things because what happened in the garden explains the reason man needs atonement and reconciliation with God, and not only this, but on what principles that reconciliation must be based and achieved. Animal sacrifice, the law of Moses, the life and offering of Christ himself, our redemption through him; everything is based upon the transgression of the Edenic law as God’s plan of salvation is about undoing the wrong that happened in the garden. Medicine is only effective if it addresses the specific attributes of the disease, and everything God prescribed from then on was to remedy the breaking of the Edenic law. These are foundational principles in the purest sense. Our focus is, then, is to show the nature and meaning of the Edenic law, when it was to be executed, what happened when man sinned, and the result of it.

There are two different thoughts on the Edenic law which we’ll talk about, and there’s much to consider as the ramifications of both are profound. This is by no means an exhaustive consideration, but it should be enough to show the teaching of Scripture. The difference in views boils down to whether a natural death or an inflicted death was threatened by the law. In other words, on the day of their eating, would Adam and Eve begin a gradual process of decay, or would they be killed?

Our focus will primarily be on what the law itself, but in examining it, we’ll also discuss the other events in the garden and a few interesting things which we may not have thought of before. Now, this subject tends to be treated differently than the rest of the Bible for some reason. Words are given meanings that are foreign to the words themselves, and speculation is forcefully applied here where we would not apply it other places. Our purpose is to have a disciplined approach which allow the Word itself to define and guide our conclusions.

Creation and the State of Man

If we’re to talk about the fallen condition of man, it’s important to understand the original state they were created in. The Lord created the heavens and earth in six days, and God declared that everything He’d made “was very good” (Genesis 1:31). The solar system, the plants, animals, man – everything was included in this pronouncement.

The pinnacle of creation was man, who was created after a different likeness and enjoyed a unique relationship to the rest of creation. We learn in Genesis 1:26-28 that man was created in the image of God, and he was given dominion over creation. The man and woman were told, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

The word “replenish” here has sometimes been taken to mean that the earth was once inhabited by people of a previous dispensation, but the word is maleh and simply means “to fill, be full of” (Strong’s H4390). There’s nothing in the word which suggests a plenishing again of the earth, but simply the filling of it. Of the 241 times it occurs, it’s only translated “replenish” just twice, once here and once after the flood. The KJV is one of the few versions which has “replenish”, most other versions rightly saying “fill the earth” (see Septuagint, Tanakh, RSV, NIV, CJB, and many others). It appears that this is the first time man was on this earth.

As to the state of man when he was created, he was not created mortal in the way we are now. Romans 5:12 says, “by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin”. Death, or mortality, was brought into the world as a result of sin, and as sin did not exist yet, mortality could not have existed before the transgression. Man was therefore not mortal in the sense of being a dying creature, but neither was he immortal, for this would mean that he cannot die. The conclusion we must reach is that man was in an undying state where he could go on living forever, but he was corruptible in the sense that he could die if disobedient to God’s law. He was not corrupted, but had the latent ability to be corrupted in the way that we have the ability to be a criminal.

It appears that man had the opportunity to subdue the earth as this command was given before the fall. If they were successful and did not break God’s law, it’s likely that they would be elevated to the incorruptible spirit nature which all of the righteous saints are promised.

As to their intellectual state, they were fully intelligent, capable adults. They were not naïve children as some suggest. Adam was capable of naming all of the animals and working the garden (Genesis 2:15, 19). The fact that there was a tree of knowledge might cause us assume that they didn’t know good or evil, but they had to know some good and evil, for otherwise they wouldn’t be able to know that keeping God’s law was good and breaking it was bad.

Adam and Eve were also created naked, yet we read that they “were not ashamed” (Genesis 2:25). This is sometimes taken to mean that Adam and Eve were incredibly naïve, but I believe this misses the point. It’s mentioned here not to show how naïve they were, but to show their innocent and unashamed state. As they had no sin, there was nothing sinful in nakedness at the time. It must be remembered that Adam and Eve were created naked, and this state was pronounced “very good”. To say that nakedness was shameful at this time would be to say God made them in a shameful state, and this contradicts the “very good” state of things. It would also put the blame for our shame on God, for He would have made us that way. So there was nothing wrong with nakedness until it after transgression when it became a symbol of their sin.

The Two Notable Trees

We read of two notable trees in Genesis 2:8-9. One was called the tree of life, and the other called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We’re not told where the tree of knowledge was placed in the garden, but the tree of life was “in the midst” of it. It seems that these trees were not right next to each other, for the text could have very easily said that both were in the midst of the garden.

As to the purpose of the trees, we need not look further than their name. The fruit from the tree of life would grant one eternal (or immortal) life, for we’re told in Genesis 3 that Adam and Eve were later cast from the garden lest they “eat, and live forever.” This would not have been eternal life in the corruptible state in which they ate of it in, but the same eternal life which we seek after it. The eating of the tree includes the elevation to the spirit nature, for the righteous are promised by Christ in

Revelation 2:7, “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.”

We know that we will be elevated to the spirit nature and not condemned to eternity in this feeble frame, for “this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality” (1 Corinthians 15:54). The putting on of immortality is coupled with that of an incorruptible nature, and as we shall be immortalized by the eating of the tree of knowledge, so shall we be made incorruptible as well.

The tree of knowledge, on the other hand, served a different purpose. We often tend to misunderstand this tree and think of it as “the tree of death” due to the fact that Adam and Eve were sentenced to death for eating of it. But that’s not it is name, and that was not it’s function. Just as the fruit of the tree of life would give life, so the eating of the tree of knowledge would give greater comprehension of good and evil.

When God first created the tree of knowledge (which was before Adam was formed), there was nothing wrong with the tree. Both trees are described alongside with the rest of the trees as “pleasant to the sight, and good for food.” The only reason death followed their eating of it is because God created a law which said that they shouldn’t eat of it. The result of eating of the tree was that they’d be given greater knowledge of good and evil, and had God not prohibited their eating of it, such would not have been a problem. We must distinguish between the effect of the fruit of the tree and that of the law placed upon it.

For example, shark fins are banned in the US in an effort to protect the animals. There’s nothing wrong with the food itself, but having and eating it will bring one under the penalty of US law. The external law which the government placed upon that food is what brings and enforces the penalty. The fruit of the tree of knowledge did not bring death; the law of God, if broken, did. Indeed, the tree itself and the gifts from eating of it made it “a tree to be desired to make one wise” (Genesis 3:6). Therefore, their eyes being opened after eating of the tree was not a punishment, but the natural result of eating of the tree of knowledge.

The Edenic Law

As we know, there was a law placed upon the tree of knowledge. This has been called the Edenic law simply because it was the law given in Eden, and it’s recorded in Genesis 2:16-17. This law stated that “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”. The breaking of God’s law is called sin, for “sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). The punishment for sinning was death, and as we will see later on, Paul therefore refers to this law as “the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2).

There are, however, two different thoughts on what this law meant and threatened. One is that the law means exactly what it says – that in the day that they ate of the tree, they were to die. The other, which was put forth by Bro. Thomas in Elpis Israel, is that the law did not mean how it reads in our Bibles, but that on the day they ate, it would set in a natural process of decay which would eventually result in their death. One view warns of a death which would be inflicted, the other of a natural death.

Why are there two different views of this? There are two principle reasons. One relates to how the law reads in strict Hebrew. Translated verbatim into English, the Hebrew reads, “in the day of thy eating from it, dying thou shalt die.” The second reason is that Adam and Eve did not die on that day, and it’s therefore reasoned that this cannot be what was meant by the law, for otherwise God is a liar. It will be seen that this second reason is actually the main reason for this line of thinking, and lead to the re-interpretation of the Hebrew phrase as a process of death.

This is apparent in Elpis Israel. The argument submitted by Bro. Thomas is that the law could not have meant an inflicted death on the day they ate, and he says, “This was not a sentence to be consummated in a moment, as when a man is shot or guillotined. It required time; for the death threatened was the result, or finishing, of a certain process; which is very clearly indicated in the original Hebrew” (Elpis Israel, pg. 68). We agree in that it was not a sentence to be carried out the very moment they ate as the law did not require an immediate death. What it required was death to be executed on “the day” they ate.

Definitions are at the source of the different views, first in what was meant by “the day” on which they ate, and the other by what is meant by “thou shalt surely die”. Let us break them down phrase by phrase to see what the Scriptures bear out.

“in the day that thou eatest thereof”

What is meant by “the day”? The word “day” in the passage is the Hebrew yôm, defined in Strong’s as “to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next) or figuratively”. The word can take on a number of meanings, both literal and figurative, and the correct understanding of each use must be determined by the context.

Many modern Christians attempt to blend the creation account with popular scientific thought of evolution and claim that a “day” in the creation account means “ages” and not a day as we understand it. The claim is that the text is written in a more poetic form instead of conveying historical fact.

Bro. Thomas takes a similar approach and says that this “day” was almost 1,000 years, “for Adam did not die until he was 930 years old; therefore, the day in which he died did not terminate until then” (Elpis Israel, pg. 67). However, he contradicts later contradicts this definition by saying that “from the day of his transgression, he began his pilgrimage to the grave” (Elpis Israel, pg. 70). Here he understands that the process of death set in on the literal day of their transgression, showing “day” to mean an actual day and not 1,000 years.

In order to ensure we understand it correctly, it is helpful to go to the original Hebrew and understand how the language uses the term. The best Hebrew scholars all attest that the Genesis account should be taken literally. When asked whether he sees these days as literal 24-hour days, Hebraist Dr. Steven Boyd explains,

“The world’s greatest Hebraist’s all affirm that this is a narrative, and they say that one of the unique features of the Genesis account of creation and the flood is that they are narratives, because in the ancient near east, they are done in epic poetry which is very different. Here, we have narrative to indicate that this is historical. What that means is that you should understand the words the normal way in which those Hebrew words are understood. The word yôm, it means day. The foundation of its usage is what we mean by day. It’s a 24-hour day. The only you’d want it to mean a longer period of time is if you impose an alien concept to the text and say, ‘Well, I think that these are ages, and therefore yôm has to mean ages.’ But you have to start with the text. If we start with the text, yôm means day.”

Steven Boyd, PhD - Hebraist, Is Genesis History?

Simply put, unless the context requires and clearly shows that “day” means something other than a 24-hour period, a normal day is what is meant, particularly here in Genesis. This is verified throughout Scripture. In the giving of the law of Moses, God dictated that a week would be comprised of seven 24-hour days, the first six being for work and the seventh as a day of rest. The reason for this organization is the creation week of seven days:

Exodus 20:9-11 – Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: (10) But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work… (11) For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.

There are indeed instances where yôm can mean something other than a 24-hour period, but this is always determined by the context and is generally defined with ease. For example,

Genesis 1:5 – And God called the light Day (yôm), and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day (yôm).

Here, yôm refers to both daytime as in the daylight hours (roughly a 12 hour period), and also to the span of “the evening and the morning” (a 24 hour period).

The other exception is

Genesis 2:4 – These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day (yôm) that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens.

The Lord did not make the entirety of the earth and heaven in one 24-hour period, but over the span of six days. The word here therefore is better understood as “age” or “period”. This is the verse which Bro. Thomas points to as evidence that the day of the Edenic law was a long period. However, of the uses of the word up to its appearance in the Edenic law, it refers to the 12 hours of daylight 4 times, a 24-hour period 10 times, and “age” only 1 time. The general rule for any word is to understand it by its core meaning unless context requires it to be understood otherwise.

There’s a practical side to consider as well. Adam and Eve had to understand the Edenic law, for it’d be unjust to administer a law which was difficult to understand and then punish the man and woman for breaking it. Adam had limited experience with time, and it was to him that the law was given on the same day he was created. It appears that Adam and Eve were both created on the sixth day (Genesis 1:27), and as it was to “the man” which the law was given, it suggests that Adam was informed of the law before Eve was even created. Knowing this, the longest length of time that Adam would understand as a “day” appears to be 24 hours as these were the days of creation.

The other comparison we to test our understanding of the Edenic “day” relates to the opening of their eyes. The law said, “in the day that thou eatest, thou shalt surely die.” The serpent uses this same phrasing when he told Eve, “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.” When were their eyes opened? Was it nearly 1,000 years after they ate? Certainly not. It appears that it happened very quickly after eating of the tree. It’s recorded that “she took of the fruit thereof, and di eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened…” (Genesis 3:6-7). The words used and the general tenor of the text tell us that these events took place in relative short order. The Bible requires us to be consistent, so if their eyes were opened on the same 24-hour day and the same phrasing is used in the Edenic law, we must conclude that the sentence of the Edenic law would be carried out in 24-hour period as well.

Given these considerations, yôm clearly means an evening and a morning. Whatever the “dying thou shalt die” means, it was to take place within a 24-hour period of their eating. As we progress, more aspects will appear that will help clarify and solidify our understanding of this word.

“thou shalt surely die” or “dying thou shalt die”

What was meant by “thou shalt surely die”? Was it warning of a process which leads to a natural death, or was it warning of an inflicted death which would take place that day. This is the crux of the difference between the two views.

Death is defined in Genesis 3:19 – In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. God formed man of the dust of the ground, breathed into him the breath of life, and that’s the moment man became a “living soul” (Genesis 2:7). Death was simply a reversal of this process. A man’s breath would leave him and he would return to the thoughtless, lifeless dust-state that he was before he was formed.

The strict translation of “thou shalt surely die” is “dying thou shalt die”. To us English speakers, this phrasing at face value can seem suggest a process of death. “Dying” leads to the moment when one will “die”. But as we’ll see, the phrase actually cannot meant a process of natural death. Many pages could be written to show how this is demonstrated in Scripture, but there are two things we will discuss which show the meaning: 1) The meaning and nature of the Hebrew phrase, and 2) The numerous other occurrences of “dying thou shalt die” which illustrate the only possible meaning.

1) The Hebrew Idiom

In my edition of Elpis Israel, there’s a footnote added by a later publisher which makes an important point on “dying thou shalt die”. It says, “The Hebrew idiom is correctly represented by the text of the A.V. Compare Gen. 2:16 (marg.), ‘Eating thou shalt eat’; and Deut. 13:15, lit., ‘Smiting thou shalt smite.’” (Elpis Israel, pg. 69). The way it reads in our Bibles is what the text actually means and how it should be translated in English, not “dying thou shalt die”. This is because “dying thou shalt die” is a Hebrew idiom.

Webster’s explains that an idiom is “an expression that is peculiar to itself either in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (such as up in the air for “undecided”) or in its grammatically atypical use of words (such as give way)”. Idioms are “language peculiar to a people or to a district, community, or class”.

What this means is that idioms do not translate verbatim into other languages because they wouldn’t convey the same thought. As Webster’s cites, we use the expression “up in the air”, but we don’t mean that something is in the sky even though that’s what the literal words mean. We mean that we’re “undecided” on something. We use these kinds of idioms all the time – “hold your horses” for “wait a minute”. “Piece of cake” means “that’s easy”. The trouble that comes with translating these idioms from one language to another is most easily seen when looking at those of other languages. One German idiom is “Tomaten auf den Augen haben,” and translated literally, it means, “You have tomatoes on your eyes.” What it actually means is, “You are not seeing what everyone else can see.” A Swedish idiom is “Det är ingen ko på isen”, literally translating to “There’s no cow on the ice.” What it means is “There’s no need to worry.” With this figure of speech, a verbatim translation is insufficient, for while it translates the words, it does not translate the meaning.

Translators therefore have to make a choice when they come upon an idiom. If they were to translate it verbatim, nobody would know what is meant, but if they only translated the meaning, it would seem to betray their role as a translator as the words they are sharing with the new audience are not the words of the original writer/speaker. Therefore, what they have to do is tell us the meaning of the phrase instead of the phrase itself, but to be transparent, they give us a footnote which shows the literal translation so we can see the figure of speech. This is what the translators of the Bible have done. If we look in our margin on Genesis 2:16, we should see “Heb. dying thou shalt die”.

One way we know this is an idiom is because the same idiom is used in Genesis 2:16 in relation to eating. The verse in the KJV reads, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat…” The meaning is clearly, “You can eat as much as you want of any tree in the garden,” but the Hebrew literally translates to “eating thou shalt eat”, and we see that in your margins as well. Another place we see this idiom is in Deuteronomy 13:15 speaking of “smiting”. The KJV reads, “Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of the land”, but the Hebrew literally translates to “Smiting thou shalt smite”.

How does this affect our understanding of the Edenic law? It means we have to understand what the idiom means in Hebrew and not what the literal translation is (even though that is important). Also, since the idiom is used in three different senses, we can compare them to see how we need to understand them. Since “eating thou shalt eat” and “smiting thou shalt smite” are the same figure of speech as “dying thou shalt die”, they must all take on the same kind of meaning if we are to be consistent.

Let’s apply Bro. Thomas’ logic to these other idioms to see if they too relate to a gradual process which eventually terminates in an event. If “dying thou shalt die” means to begin the process of dying but not actually die for some undetermined period, then the phrase “eating thou shalt eat” must also mean to begin the process of eating without actually eating for some undetermined period. Likewise, “smiting thou shalt smite” must mean to begin the process of smiting without actually smiting at that time.

When we apply this test, we see that the phrases lose their meaning and frankly don’t make sense. Could Adam and Eve begin the process of eating without actually eating it yet? Or could Israel be said to smite a city before actually striking it? The only way it makes sense is as the translators have it in our Bibles.

The question arises though: what is the purpose of this idiom, and why is it used in these instances? This kind of idiom is often called homogene, and it’s purpose is to show a greater degree and emphasis of a statement. In Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger explains that with homogene,

“a verb and its participle are used in combination in order to add an intensity to the sense; or to give the verb, as it were, a superlative degree. It is used in two ways: (a) In strong and emphatic affirmation. (b) In strong negation.”

Homogene is simply a way to show approval or disapproval of a certain thing. Bullinger continues in his explanation cites Genesis 2:16 as an example of this, and then comments upon the Edenic law:

“Gen. 2:16 – “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest feely eat.” Hebrew, eating thou shalt eat. The conjugated verb is strengthened and emphasized by the infinitive preceding it. This infinitive Eve omitted in 3:2, and thus “diminished” from the word of God.

“Gen. 2:17 – “Thou shalt surely die.” Hebrew, dying thou shalt die. Here again Eve (3:3) alters the Word of God by saying “Lest ye die!” תָּמֽוּת מ֥וֹת (moth tahmuth) thou shalt most certainly die, were the words of the Lord God. Thus she changes a certainty into a contingency.”

(Figures of Speech Used in the Bible, E.W. Bullinger, pgs. 272-273)

The Lord utilizes the idiom in these passages to emphasize the degree or emphasis of what would/should occur. The translators knew this and therefore translated it to show this emphasis. It is why we read “thou mayest freely eat” as compared to “thou shalt eat”, “thou shalt surely die” as compared to “thou shalt die”, and “thou shalt surely smite” as compared to thou shalt smite”.

Knowing this brings out an interesting point on how Eve cited the law when talking to the serpent. She said that they shouldn’t eat of it, “Lest they die.” While this was true, it was not what the Lord had said. He had said, “thou shalt surely die.” Eve had therefore diminished the strength and the degree of the Lord’s words.

2. Other appearances of “thou shalt surely die”

Not only do we have these other uses of the idiom in the Bible, but the exact phrase moth tahmuth “dying thou shalt die” appears numerous other times in Scripture. This fact of multiple occurrences itself hints to its meaning, for if the phrase truly meant the onset of mankind’s decaying condition, it would be inappropriate for anyone after the fall to threaten anyone. It would be pointless for one man to condemn another and say, “If you do not do as I please, I will subject you to a natural process of decay which will eventually result in your death.” Not only is this not in man’s power to carry out, but man is already in this fallen condition, and it is therefore useless to use the phrase. However, if the law meant that a death would be inflicted upon Adam and Eve in the sense of killing or slaying, this is something that can apply after the fall.

There are too many passages which utilize this Hebrew phrase for us to show all of them here, but we’ll examine two which suffice to show the clear meaning of the phrase:

1 Samuel 22:16-18. King Saul learned that the priest Ahimelech had helped David. He was furious at this, “And the king said, (moth tahmuth) Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech, thou, and all thy father's house (vs.16). The servants of the king feared to kill the priests, so “the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests. And Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod” (vs. 18). Here, we see that “thou shalt surely die” clearly meant an inflicted death, for after saying “Thou shalt surely die”, Saul commanded his servants, “Turn, and slay the priests of the Lord” (vs. 17). It is impossible to apply the “natural decay process” here.

Another pertinent case is that of Solomon and Shimei in 1 Kings 2, and it is particularly interesting because it mentions a timeframe in which the death would be inflicted, similar to the Edenic law. In 1 Kings 2:36-37, Solomon warned Shimei not to leave his home, for “on the day (yôm) thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that (moth tahmuth) thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.” Shimei ended up leaving his home, and the news was told to Solomon. A few verses down, we read

1 Kings 2:41-42, 46 – And it was told Solomon that Shimei had gone from Jerusalem to Gath, and was come again. (42) And the king sent and called for Shimei, and said unto him, Did I not make thee to swear by the LORD, and protested unto thee, saying, Know for a certain, on the day (yôm) thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that (moth tahmuth) thou shalt surely die? and thou saidst unto me, The word that I have heard is good... (46) So the king commanded Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; which went out, and fell upon him, that he died.

As soon as Solomon learned that Shimei had broken the oath, Solomon hurried him to his feet, judged him, and had him slain. Solomon’s threat of “thou shalt surely die” meant just that.

It is sometimes objected here that the “day” here must not mean a literal 24-hour day, for it seems that Shimei’s travelling could have taken more than a day. However, we must note the difference in ability between Solomon and God here in executing the sentence. It’s possible that Shimei didn’t die the day he left the house because Solomon relied on his servants to learn and share this information. Solomon executed the sentence as soon as he learned of the offence, and if he was able to perform it on the same day as the transgression, then it’s without question that he did. God, however, doesn’t have this crutch as He is all-knowing. He knew the moment Adam and Eve sinned and was therefore able to execute the sentence on that day. This does not mean they were supposed to die the very moment they ate of the tree, for the text does not say this, but simply on that day.

Nevertheless, Solomon’s warning to Shimei was clear: On the day you leave, you will die. Benaiah inflicted this death and “fell upon him”.

Basically, all of this is just a long way of saying that the translators did their job well, and what we read in our Bibles is what God means: “in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die”. Taking it any other way contradicts the established meaning of the idiom and the Scripturally demonstrated meaning of the phrase. For the rest of the occurrences of this phrase, see also Genesis 20:7, 1 Samuel 14:44-45, 2 Kings 1:4, 16-17, Jeremiah 26:8, Ezekiel 3:18, 33:8, 14-15. Each case shows an inflicted death, carried out either by God or man. These passages alone area more than enough to teach us the meaning.

Man’s Transgression

Understanding this law, man went about caring for the garden. It seems, though, that very little time passed between the formation of Eve and the entrance of the serpent. We imagine that the fall took place on the 8th day of creation, for the 8th day is used throughout Scripture in relation to a cutting off either in reference to circumcision or the final cutting off of sin when Christ delivers the kingdom up to God and the eight-thousandth year begins (Genesis 17:12, 1 Corinthians 15:24-26).

The serpent would be best discussed on its own at another time, but it’ll suffice to say that it was created with the ability to perceive its surroundings and articulate through speech. It therefore acted as a test of man’s obedience.

We’re familiar with the account. The serpent deceived Eve, drawing her attention to the beauty and desirability of the tree of knowledge, and he mixed truth with a lie. He says in

Genesis 3:4-5 – Ye shall not surely die: (6) 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.

Perhaps Eve believed the serpent because he had been around longer than she had. Regardless, the desire and pride for greater knowledge, accompanied with the desirability of the tree, conjured in her “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” (1 John 2:16). Eve was deceived, “She took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat” (Genesis 3:6). While Eve was deceived, we’re told that “Adam was not deceived” (1 Timothy 2:14). There are various thoughts on why Adam ate, but the fact that he was not deceived narrows these down significantly. Perhaps he feared life without his new companion and wanted to join her fate? Perhaps he saw that she was okay after eating and assumed the fruit did not have an ill effect?

Regardless, we read in verse 7 that upon their eating, “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” They were ashamed, and they’d never experienced this feeling before. It’s interesting that it seems their eyes weren’t opened until after both of them ate.

What does is it mean that their “eyes were opened”? Some tend to look at this fact as proof that a natural death was meant by the law and not a swift, inflicted death. This “opening of the eyes” is said to show that the process of decay had set in, but this interpretation would place the execution of the sentence before the court hearing. This is not the execution of the Edenic law, for the tribunal had not yet occurred.

Their eyes were opened simply because of the tree they ate from. It was not called “the tree of death”, but “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” Adam and Eves’ eyes being opened was not a punishment of any kind, but rather the effect of eating of the tree of knowledge. We must distinguish between the effect of the tree of knowledge and the law which God placed upon it. As mentioned earlier, if we ate shark fin in the United States, we wouldn’t be fined of suffer whatever the penalty is the moment we ate it. Once our transgression was known, we would be called before a court of some kind to prove guilt, and then we would be charged. The same thing happened here in the garden.

Part of this “opening of the eyes” was that they knew they were naked and were now ashamed of it. Adam and Eve were not so foolish as to be naïve of the fact they were naked, for they could clearly see it for themselves. The difference is that they were now ashamed of their nakedness. As Brother Thomas suggests, and I agree, the offence was felt in their consciences. Their consciences were made bare, and they now “knew” good and evil in a way that they had never known it before. Conceptually, they knew good and evil, but they’d never known it in the sense of experiencing it until now. This “knowing” of good and evil was not what they were expecting, and their consciences were pricked.

A similar event is seen in the sad case of Amnon and Tamar. Amnon lusted after her and “was so vexed, that he fell sick for his sister Tamar; for she was a virgin; and Amnon thought it hard for him to do any thing to her” (2 Samuel 13:2). Amnon knew that it was sinful, but he had a friend named Jonadab who played the role of the serpent. We are even told that, like the serpent, Jonadab “was a very subtil man” (vs. 3 – CP to Genesis 3:1), and he gave Amnon the same thing that the serpent gave Eve – a way to acquire what he/she desired and the boldness to carry it out. Amnon said, “Why art thou, being the king’s son, lean from day to day?” (vs. 4), and he proposed a plan for Amnon to have his sister.

In considering his desires in this light, Amnon’s imagination undoubtedly promised him great things of what it would have been like to have her, so he forced Tamar. But what was the result? Immediately following the sin, “Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her” (2 Samuel 13:15). This “knowing” of his sister was not filled with the pleasure he was expecting, for his conscience was now pricked. He knew it was sin before he acted, but now he fully knew the sin. His casting away of Tamar was motivated by the same feelings which caused Adam and Eve to flee and sew fig leaves together.

This same thing plays out for each of us whenever we are tempted and sin. Sin promises us satisfaction, but once we give in, we are immediately left with only shame and contempt. Sin is thus “a liar” as it’s called in John 8:44.

And so, Adam and Eve’s consciences were made naked, and from that point on, their internal feelings and moral depravity were given a physical manifestation, and their physical nakedness became the figure of their moral nakedness. Nakedness was now a symbol for sin, and so they tried to cover up their shame and nakedness with fig leaves.

The Execution of the Sentence

Then came the tribunal. We see this not only here in the garden, but everywhere else in Scripture. A law is laid out, and if it is broken, the person is summoned and tried, and when found guilty, they are punished. Even though the Lord knows that they did it, this order is still carried out. The same will be true in the day of judgment before Christ. Christ knows the things we’ve done right and wrong and could easily administer our punishment or reward without even having us stand before him, yet this is still the process we’re told about.

With Adam and Eve, the Lord appeared in the garden and questioned them regarding their sin, and they acknowledged their sin. It’s recorded,

Genesis 3:9-13 – And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? (10) And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. (11) And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? (12) And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. (13) And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

When I was younger, I believed that they were pointing the finger at one another, but this is not what is taking place. The transgressors are simply admitting what they have done. They were not trying to deceive God, but were confessing their sin. There is nothing but truth in their statements. Adam was not deceived but ate of the tree, and he therefore says, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Eve was deceived by the serpent, and she therefore admits, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.”

This confession and repentance would be meted with mercy, but the law had been broken, and they were still to be condemned for it. We’ve seen that the penalty of the law was an inflicted death which would be carried out on that day, yet we know that they didn’t die that day. We see that what was threatened was not carried out exactly as threatened due to their confession of their sins and the interjection of Divine mercy.

Some will protest that if the sentence wasn’t carried out precisely as it was threatened, then God is therefore a liar. Is this so? If it is, then we are forced to call God a liar countless times, for the Scriptures are full of instances where a particular thing was threatened, but upon man’s repentance and humility, God showed mercy and either altered or nullified the sentence. The principle of repentance resulting in mercy is one of the main themes of the Scriptures. Consider

Ezekiel 33:14-15 – …when I say unto the wicked, (moth tahmuth) Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right… he shall surely live, he shall not die.

Here we have the same punishment as was threatened in the Edenic law, but we learn that genuine repentance changes the situation of the transgressor. We’re told that the transgressor “shall not die”, obviously meaning the inflicted death. As to other examples of this in the Bible, we need only mention two to see the great mercy of our God.

Most are familiar with the condemnation breathed against Nineveh. Jonah was commanded to tell the Ninevites, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4). This was the condemnation, and we note that just like the Edenic law, there was nothing said about “if you repent, you will not be overthrown.” Taking the word strictly, Nineveh’s fate was already sealed. But to Jonah’s dismay, the people repented and the Lord stayed his hand (Jonah 1:2, 10). “God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.” Is this not the principle of Ezekiel 33?

Even wicked Ahab is an example of this, for after he’d killed Naboth for his vineyard, the Lord condemned him, saying, “Behold, I will bring evil upon thee, and will take away thy posterity, and will cut off from Ahab him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel.” But, we read,

1 Kings 21:27-29 – it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly. (28) And the word of the LORD came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, (29) Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days: but in his son's days will I bring the evil upon his house.

Again, there was no part of the original condemnation which said that the punishment was conditional upon their continued sin. The word of God simply said, “This is going to happen”, yet upon repentance and humility, God interceded and had mercy.

Would any call God unjust in anything of this? Certainly not, for as the law giver, He can do as He pleases. If Adam and Eve genuinely confessed their sins and repented, but the Lord still punished them exactly the same, this would be the only example of it in the Bible. It was because of Divine mercy that the race continued to go on.

There is another critical component as to why it was possible that they didn’t die that day which we haven’t discussed yet, but we will do that in a moment in its own section. But now, let us examine Adam and Eve’s sentence.

If they didn’t die that day, what did happen? Since the law had been given and broken, it couldn’t go completely unenforced. What resulted was an altered sentence. Instead of returning to dust that day, a number of other curses were put in place which allowed the man to continue living for a time, but not forever. Part of this was to be cast from the garden to till the earth which was now cursed (Genesis 3:14-19, 23). The two important changes which concern us now and affected them and all of their posterity are as follows:

1. A sentence of death passed upon the race. The Edenic law had required their death as a result of sin, and although the immediate blow was enacted upon another creature, “it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Hebrews 10:4). The most it could do is cover them up for the time being. Yet the law still rested upon them, and they would still return to the dust of the earth, but not that day. They were given a span of life which would result in their death, but this period would allow them opportunity to prove themselves worthy to return to the garden. This sentence of death passed upon them and all of their posterity as we’re told in

Romans 5:12 – Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that (literally, “in whom” – see Diaglott) all have sinned:

The Edenic law therefore condemned the entire race, and as it’s this condemnation which we received from Adam, it’s referred to as Adamic condemnation. The Edenic law warned of death as a result of sin, and that death is what passed upon all men. It is therefore also styled by Paul “the law of sin and death” in Romans 8:2.

2. Sin became a fixed member of their being. There would now be constant enmity between man and sin, and the sin which Eve gave way to became a fixed part of their members, creating in them the natural tendency to rebel against God’s ways. The voice of the serpent which began to reason with the law of God and make it seem “not so bad” to break it was implanted into our minds. It is inherent rebellion against God’s ways. Paul calls this a “law of sin which is in my members” (Romans 7:23), and this is what the New Testament frequently calls “the Devil” or “the Adversary”.

This adversary has been present in every person since the fall. It is sin in the flesh, and we experience it every day of our lives. There are things which we desire that are contrary to God’s ways, and we are bombarded by them every day. When a sinful thought arises, a battle begins in our minds. Those who have fought their natural desires know very well what we mean. We have a choice when such a thought arises – we can either heed the voice of the spirit by refusing the evil and getting our minds onto something better, or we can heed the serpent’s voice in our minds and ruminate on the evil deed until we are comfortable transgressing. This is not some fallen-angel “devil” doing this, but sin in our own members.

James 1:14-15 – But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. (15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

It is this subtil voice which entices us and says, “Well, you actually could do that. It wouldn’t be that bad. Actually, if you look at this way, it’s not even sin,” etching ever closer to transgression. This is the great deceiver, and while in the case of Amnon it was Jonadab who persuaded Amnon to grasp what he lusted for, this voice is inside every one of us.

As Christ came to redeem us from the law of sin and death with the goal of ultimately delivering us from this mortal, sin-ridden frame, it was necessary that he be endowed with the same nature and frame as us (Hebrews 2:16-18). He was “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). He had this same voice of the serpent in his own mind, and nowhere is this more clearly shown to us than the temptation in the wilderness.

We can’t go too deeply into this subject at this time for time’s sake, but there is a view that this “tempter” in the wilderness was an external being, a person who was an enemy of Jesus of some sort. Suffice it to say for now that this presents many issues not only within the text itself, but concerning the very work which Christ came to do. What we see in the temptation is precisely what we’re told in James 1. Christ being “tempted” and “drawn away of his own lust”, the voice of the serpent in his natural mind tried to persuade him to transgress. It was working in him just how it works in us. What Christ was tempted with in the wilderness were things which were revealed in the prophets, and the test was to see Christ’s faithfulness. Now that he had received the Spirit without measure (Matthew 3:16, John 3:34), how would he use it? Would he abuse it and vainly provide natural sustenance for himself? He had read that the Lord would watch over him, but as yet he hadn’t had a clear show of this. Would it be so wrong to test it to see whether the angels would save him? He had also read of his grand future of reigning over all the kingdoms of the earth from a great mountain in Jerusalem. Now possessing the power of the holy spirit, would it not be easier to skip the suffering and crucifixion and subdue the nations now? Such were the temptations of Christ after not eating for 40 days.

But Christ shows us how to conquer these things. He knew his Bible, and for every voice of the serpent which said “You can do this or that”, he was able to counteract it with a “Nay, for it is written…” This is what we must do as well.

Such were the two long-reaching effects of the transgression in relation to mankind and his physical and mental condition. Yet there was the promise of a seed to come – a descendant of Adam and Eve who would come and destroy the serpent and his seed (Genesis 3:15).

Now, there’s a crucial part of this we briefly mentioned, and it bears heavily on why man did not die that day.

The Animal Covering

Adam and Eves’ fig leaves were not sufficient to cover their nakedness, and here we learn more on what the Edenic law required. Out of an act of pure mercy, God provided them with “coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). Where do coats of skins come from? Clearly an animal, and in order to use its coat to cover Adam and Eve, the animal had to be slain. The big question is WHY? Really think on this. If it were only their nakedness that needed covering, why were the fig-leaf aprons not good enough for God? They were made specifically to cover their nakedness, so it’s not that they didn’t provide enough coverage. They were insufficient because of what the Edenic law required.

The importance of this being animal slain to cover their sins cannot be understated. The Scriptures show a clear and important principle throughout its pages, and it is concisely summed in the statement, “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22). There are two important things we learn from this.

First, it’s that bloodshed, not a natural death, was required for Adam and Eve to keep on living beyond the transgression. Why? Again, all things go back to the transgression. The reason remission is necessary is because of the transgression of the Edenic law, and the reason that bloodshed is required for remission is because bloodshed was required by the Edenic Law. The Lord did not wait for the animal to die of natural causes to use its coat. Just like every other sacrifice, it was unquestionably slain because slaying was the intended threat of the law.

The second thing relates to when the Edenic law was to be originally carried out. Man was not to die at some undetermined time in the future, but on that day. The fact that there was death AT ALL in the garden as a result of their transgression shows this. Consider, if the Edenic law really meant that man would begin the gradual process of decay which resulted in death, then why was this animal SLAIN? Why was there inflicted death at all? Why was its life necessary to be “poured out” so that Adam and Eve could have their sin covered? In other words, had the law not required death that day, there would have been no need to slay the animal. If a natural death was threatened and the law was executed how God had originally declared it, then the slain animal was pointless as it did nothing for them. If a natural death was threatened and carried, where is the significance of the blood? It must not have been needed, and it therefore didn’t benefit them any more than their fig-leaf coverings. for they were still cast from the garden, and they still began the process of decay and death. If it did not help Adam and Eve in any regard, the killing of the animal was a pointless waste.

We can see the trouble with this in a mathematical sense by looking at what was threatened, what happened, and what the result was:

We see here that the only reason the animal coats were provided was to alter the sentence and allow them to keep on living. Just like every other sacrifice in the Bible, the slaying of the animal showed that man was the one worthy of death, but out of God’s goodness, He provided a means for an animal to take the brunt of the blow for the time being so their sins could be covered. It is not unlike the case of Abraham and Isaac when God had commanded Abraham to offer his son, but God ended up providing a ram instead (Genesis 22:2, 11-13).

This animal in Eden is even more important when we realize that it was a lamb and represented Jesus Christ, for in Revelation 13:8 he calls himself “the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Every sacrifice made in the Bible was a figure of Christ, and every sacrifice was made with the intention of changing the situation of the offeror. This sacrifice was no different.

As to the importance of this doctrine, it’s seen in its effect on other principles and what was required by the redeemer of the race, for he came to remedy the breaking of the Edenic law. It’s why Christ had to be slain and sacrificed. If the Edenic law only threatened a natural death, then Christ could have died a natural death for himself and obtained salvation. Unlike Christ, we have personal sins which condemn us as well, and it such would mean that if Christ had died a natural death, nobody else would be able to attain salvation through him.

We therefore see the importance and mercy bound up in these coats of skins. Just as their nakedness was the physical representation of their sin and shame, so the provision of the coats was the act which showed God’s mercy and that their sins had been covered.

Expulsion from the Garden & the Hope of Return

Having their sins covered, Adam and Eve were cast forth from the garden. This was done “Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Genesis 3:22). They were not worthy to eat of the tree of life, so they were cast out of paradise to till the ground from whence they were taken. As man was formed form the dust of the earth, this is a fit symbol to show man working and toiling in his nature to overcome it.

The cherubim and “a flaming sword which turned every way” were placed at gate of garden to “keep the way of the tree of life”. This was not just to prevent them from reentering the garden, but as the word “keep” means “to protect, to preserve” (see Strong’s), it was to keep the way open until Christ came and made salvation possible. For those who “overcome”, they will be allowed to eat of the tree and live forever. As Christ is the only way to reconciliation with God and eternal life, he therefore says in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” No man can either come to the Father or attain eternal life without going through Christ, for this path to the tree of life has already been trodden by the captain of our salvation. He is therefore “the forerunner” (Hebrews 6:20), and because he has obtained salvation, we can go forth with confidence as we strive against this flesh in the hope of the same blessing of eternal life.

Many of these things might seem like trivial details, but their impact is far reaching. One of the most significant things relates to how the redeemer would have to die to fulfill the law, therefore satisfying its requirements, and being raised to life again and free from the law, enjoying life without end. “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore” (Revelation 1:18).

The inflicted death required by the Edenic law is why it was so important that Christ “was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities… he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter” (Isaiah 53:5, 7). It’s why the prophecies said, “Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered” (Zechariah 13:7). “He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26). Not only this, but it shows importance of baptism as our baptisms are us legally dying with Christ, our old man in Adam suffers the same inflicted death he suffered when we go under the waters. “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed” (Romans 6:6).

As Paul says, “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:2). We who have been baptized have been freed in the legal sense as we are now “in Christ” and under “the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus”, and we simply await the physical freedom from sin, termed by Paul as “the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23). This will be accomplished through the tree of life.

Hebrews 9:27-28 – And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (28) So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.