Did Adam and Eve know of the concept of good and evil before eating the forbidden fruit?

[Bubuy]

And if they didn’t, is it fair for them to be punished for an act whose moral value they didn’t understand? True, God told them not to eat from the tree. But without the knowledge of good and evil, their free choice to disobey God was morally neutral for them, similar to, dare I say it, picking the red or blue crayon.

 

[w_stewart]

Yes. God told them the implication if they would eat that forbidden fruit.

 

[Nita]

Disobedience of God IS a moral evil.
Adam and Eve knew who God was. The test was for them to choose to trust in His goodness and wisdom; to choose to believe His word; to choose to obey Him.

Failure to understand why a certain command is given, failure to understand all the consequences that will result, does not excuse a person’s disobedience to a command given by one who has authority over them.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Disobedience of God IS a moral evil.
Adam and Eve knew who God was. The test was for them to choose to trust in His goodness and wisdom; to choose to believe His word; to choose to obey Him.

Failure to understand why a certain command is given, failure to understand all the consequences that will result, does not excuse a person’s disobedience to a command given by one who has authority over them.

This is a good point. If there is a bottle that says “danger toxic” and you go ahead and drink it, even if you dont understand what death is the fact is death will result. You know death is a bad thing, but just because you cant comprehend death doesnt mean the consequences will be any less severe.

 

[buffalo]

Yes they did - St Ambrose Commentary

around page 300

 

[Crumpy]

I couldn’t find it at page 300 in the St. Ambrose commentary, at a quick glance.

From first principles, Adam and Eve must have known the law God had given them. The whole episode would have little meaning if they did not have freedom of choice.

It would mean that they were not made in the image and likeness of God, as much as we accept that idea.

The first chapters of Genesis shows how God speaks, or in other words, commands that something happen – and it does. That is the general pattern that is set up. So, eventually we get to the command to Adam and Eve and then – BANG – something else happens. God’s command is not obeyed.

What follows is a tremendous reversal of how well things have gone so far. Of course Adam and Eve “knew” – they were hiding after they considered what they had done.

Some say that the Catholic Church has no definite opinion on the historical accuracy of Genesis, so you can take it literally or not. I find that the dialog of Genesis is very modern, it is ageless, it is easy to understand, it could have happened yesterday, as far as the persons of Adam and Eve are described.

I happen to take all history as relatively recent occurrence, and people in the Bible are very modern to me. I don’t know if that’s the result of the translators’ biases, or what. But, the translations portray people to me as very modern, right back to Adam and Eve. I think they knew exactly what they were doing.

God treats them as culpable, that’s good enough for me.

 

[buffalo]

Yes they did - St Ambrose Commentary

around page 300

around page 309 - sorry

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I happen to take all history as relatively recent occurrence, and people in the Bible are very modern to me. I don’t know if that’s the result of the translators’ biases, or what. But, the translations portray people to me as very modern, right back to Adam and Eve. I think they knew exactly what they were doing.

If only more people today thought like you! It seems like the mindset in the modern age is that everyone that lived before now was woefully ignorant, unevolved, crude, and hopelessly naive.

I think Adam and Eve knew too. The serpent’s hook was that they didn’t really know good from evil (the lie) and that by disobeying God they would be like God too. (the false promise, another lie)

This temptation is still highly successfull with people who are told they must experience such and such a thing, even though it is wrong, or they will not be complete or normal persons.

 

[Crumpy]

Well, something else on this came up rather unexpectedly.

I was watching the rerun of EWTN Live from last Wednesday, and Fr. Mitch had on that priest from whatever, Priests for Life International, or something like that.

In discussing why the Church is “in the bedroom” to legislate things like about birth control and abortion: The priest made the point about Adam and Eve, that God gave them a commandment, to remind them that they were not God, even though they were made in the image and likeness of God.

Their very temptation was supposedly to be more like God, but not in the way that God wanted them to be so.

As it turns out, Adam and Eve didn’t need more than one commandment to get into trouble, especially with Satan hanging around.

Look at it this way, what did God give them an intellect for, when they were in Eden, the garden of paradise? There was one and only one reason that they needed so much mental firepower, and that was to worship and obey God. As we all know, they blew it.

 

[annem]

Crumpy:

he priest made the point about Adam and Eve, that God gave them a commandment, to remind them that they were not God, even though they were made in the image and likeness of God.

Their very temptation was supposedly to be more like God, but not in the way that God wanted them to be so.

This is really interesting—something I’ve never heard before but makes great sense.

I have an audio tape with Scott Hahn discussing Adam and Eve and he suggests that Adam was more to blame. I’ve always wanted to hear more about that. Does anyone out there know the background? Did Jewish scholars or early church fathers believe this?

God bless you, Annem

 

[Abbadon]

This is a good point. If there is a bottle that says “danger toxic” and you go ahead and drink it, even if you dont understand what death is the fact is death will result. You know death is a bad thing, but just because you cant comprehend death doesnt mean the consequences will be any less severe.

But should you be held accountable for your actions if you didn’t understand fully what you were doing was wrong?

How about another analogy. adam and eve were niave so lets pretend they were children. The decision to punish them was made by god so lets pretend he’s a judge. Now getting kicked out of the garden of eden into frack is pretty bad so lets call it the death penalty.

Now IF two children ate from a tree that the law forbade them to eat from. Although they had no comprehension of good and evil, but they knew what the consequences would be. Is the death penalty a fair consequence for those children?

Not that this event really ever happened (Sorry I just had to say that) But it is an interesting story to look at.

On a side note I also find it intresting that goldilocks (a blond haired underage girl) gets away with breaking and entering, squatting and stealing.

That was not intended to be a pun or anything of such context although it may sound like that. It’s just something that I always found interesting in the brothers Grimm mythology…

 

[pyropam]

From any court in the country:

“Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.”

So, we still follow the same rule that God gave Adam and Eve.

Sorry Judge, I knew I shouldn’t have killed the guy but… I didn’t know you would have put me in jail for life.

 

[Fidelis]

But should you be held accountable for your actions if you didn’t understand fully what you were doing was wrong?

How about another analogy. adam and eve were niave so lets pretend they were children. The decision to punish them was made by god so lets pretend he’s a judge. Now getting kicked out of the garden of eden into frack is pretty bad so lets call it the death penalty.

Now IF two children ate from a tree that the law forbade them to eat from. Although they had no comprehension of good and evil, but they knew what the consequences would be. Is the death penalty a fair consequence for those children?

Not that this event really ever happened (Sorry I just had to say that) But it is an interesting story to look at.

On a side note I also find it intresting that goldilocks (a blond haired underage girl) gets away with breaking and entering, squatting and stealing.

That was not intended to be a pun or anything of such context although it may sound like that. It’s just something that I always found interesting in the brothers Grimm mythology…

I don’t see any warrant to believe that Adam and Eve were in any sense “naive.” I think many of us are unduly influenced by the popular and childish images of an airheaded Eve and a clueless Adam being bamboozled by a little green snake hanging from a tree.

On the contrary, Adam and Eve were created perfect, not only with every possible natural gift, but with special preter-natural gifts as well. This means that they were unique in that they had perfect control of their emotions, will, and intellect (unlike us). Many believe that if we were to meet Adam and Eve in their pre-fallen state, we mind be inclined to worship them. If they could not pass the test, no one could (until Christ did, of course, who succeeded where they failed).

In other words, they had every means and information they needed to make the right choice, but did not. If this was not the case, and especially since the stakes were so high, the choice would have been no choice at all.

 

[fhansen]

And if they didn’t, is it fair for them to be punished for an act whose moral value they didn’t understand? True, God told them not to eat from the tree. But without the knowledge of good and evil, their free choice to disobey God was morally neutral for them, similar to, dare I say it, picking the red or blue crayon.

Like another poster said, original sin was the first act of evil for man but I don’t think Adam & Eve could really know evil, and thereby good by contrast, until they experienced it by living separated from God in a fallen world where man determines right and wrong for himself. It seems to me now that Gods’ plan, knowing the fall would occur, was to have mankind experience good and evil with the goal of molding man-but only with mans’ cooperation-into beings who will ultimately love and choose only good. We have to learn why Adam & Eves’ choice was the wrong one. In this scenario, the “punishment” is part of an overall plan.

 

[Fidelis]

Like another poster said, original sin was the first act of evil for man but I don’t think Adam & Eve could really know evil, and thereby good by contrast, until they experienced it by living separated from God in a fallen world where man determines right and wrong for himself. It seems to me now that Gods’ plan, knowing the fall would occur, was to have mankind experience good and evil with the goal of molding man-but only with mans’ cooperation-into beings who will ultimately love and choose only good. We have to learn why Adam & Eves’ choice was the wrong one. In this scenario, the “punishment” is part of an overall plan.

I disagree, since that would make God the author of evil, which he is not. Surely he foreknew what would happen, but that is not the same as intending it to happen.

The idea of humans having to experience evil in order to be able to know the difference between good and evil is especially erroneous. That would be like those parents who let their young kids drink and stay out late and go on unchaperoned dates just so “they’ll really experience real life and learn from their mistakes.” God is a much better parent than that, I hope.

The alternatives and the consequences were fully known to Adam and Eve. They knew what evil was because God told them about the tree and they didn’t ask for an explanation. The sin wasn’t in not knowing the difference, but of being the one that decided what is good and what is evil – something only God can really decide. The lesson wasn’t one on decision-making – it was all about trust, humility and obedience to God who had given them everything they needed.

 

[Bubuy]

Thank you for all your responses, and I believe I have come to a clearer understanding of Adam and Eve’s disobedience and consequent punishment.

Buffalo’s reference to St. Ambrose’s commentary on Genesis proved to be very helpful, especially in the following excerpt:

*There is the objection that a person who does not know good and evil is unaware that disobedience to a command is in itself an evil, nor is he aware that obedience to a command is itself a good. Hence it is argued that the person who is in this respect ignorant is deserving, not of condemnation, but of pardon. What we have already maintained above presents a ready solution to this problem. Man is capable of realizing that the utmost deference should be given to his Maker because of what God had already conferred on him, namely, the fact that God had breathed on him and that he was placed in the Garden of Delight. Wherefore, if he was ignorant of the meaning of good and evil. Nevertheless, since the Creator of such mighty things had declared that one should not eat of the tree of good and evil, loyal adherence should be given to Him who gave the command. It was not a question of technical knowledge, but of fidelity. He certainly was aware that God was in a position of preeminence and, as such, heed should be paid to His command. Although he did not understand the precise significance of the commands, he was conscious of the fact that deference should be paid to the person of the Commander. *

In reading this, I can’t help but remember the interesting question: Is something good because God commands it, or does God command something because it is good?

I suppose we shall always remember that God is the author of all moral laws that are hardwired into our brains and are evident around us. Therefore, the simple reality that Adam and Eve have disobeyed God should be in itself considered evil, regardless of whether they actually knew if what they were doing was evil. Why? Because disobedience to God is evil, perhaps the very definition of evil. To say that their disobedience to God was not evil since they were unaware of what the concept of good and evil was is similar to saying that a basketball player reaching the maximum limit of six fouls in a game shouldn’t be ejected because he did not know that such a rule existed; it is as it is. One cannot not commit evil in disobeying God because disobeying God is evil in itself. They knew what would happen to them if they had tasted the fruit, as weightily evidenced by Eve’s hesitation in eating it after being tempted by the serpent. But still, they chose to disobey God, and by extension, chose to commit evil, and as such, are fully deserving of the punishment they had received.

Well, after all is said and done, I suppose what we should gather from this is this: we should cease trying to define good and evil on our own terms but rather attempt to define it by seeking to understand God’s commands and obeying them the best we can.

To paraphrase St. Ambrose, knowing good and evil is not a question of technical knowledge, inasmuch as it is a question of fidelity.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

But should you be held accountable for your actions if you didn’t understand fully what you were doing was wrong?

How about another analogy. adam and eve were niave so lets pretend they were children. The decision to punish them was made by god so lets pretend he’s a judge. Now getting kicked out of the garden of eden into frack is pretty bad so lets call it the death penalty.

Now IF two children ate from a tree that the law forbade them to eat from. Although they had no comprehension of good and evil, but they knew what the consequences would be. Is the death penalty a fair consequence for those children?

This isn’t so much about God unleashing His wrath on Adam and Eve as it is ramifications to sin. Sin corrupts. If you know it is dangerous to play near a cliff and yet you go ahead and jump off of a cliff and break your leg it is not God who broke your leg, it is the ramifications of your sin. Adam and Eve separated THEMSELVES from God, and the ramifications are spiritual death as well as all the physical corruptions that go along with that.

I don’t see any warrant to believe that Adam and Eve were in any sense “naive.” I think many of us are unduly influenced by the popular and childish images of an airheaded Eve and a clueless Adam being bamboozled by a little green snake hanging from a tree.

On the contrary, Adam and Eve were created perfect, not only with every possible natural gift, but with special preter-natural gifts as well. This means that they were unique in that they had perfect control of their emotions, will, and intellect (unlike us). Many believe that if we were to meet Adam and Eve in their pre-fallen state, we mind be inclined to worship them. If they could not pass the test, no one could (until Christ did, of course, who succeeded where they failed).

In other words, they had every means and information they needed to make the right choice, but did not. If this was not the case, and especially since the stakes were so high, the choice would have been no choice at all.

Wow, good stuff! I often forget that we should not be looking at Adam and Eve as airheads.

 

[Nita]

The lesson wasn’t one on decision-making – it was all about trust, humility and obedience to God who had given them everything they needed.

Amen.
And thus it was OBEDIENCE - Our Lord’s obedience, even unto death - that made reparation for man’s DISOBEDIENCE.
Phil 2:5-8 … Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.

 

[fhansen]

I disagree, since that would make God the author of evil, which he is not. Surely he foreknew what would happen, but that is not the same as intending it to happen.

God not only allows evil but also brings good out of it. How could God, knowing the beginning from the end, knowing that the fall would occur after creation, not have the fall be part of His plan-and not merely as a contingency but as the only possibility? How could an all-good and all-knowing God create the universe unless He intended to bring good out of the evil He *knew *would occur?

Our free will, no matter how radically free, is ultimately less free than-and subjugated to-His will.

The idea of humans having to experience evil in order to be able to know the difference between good and evil is especially erroneous. That would be like those parents who let their young kids drink and stay out late and go on unchaperoned dates just so “they’ll really experience real life and learn from their mistakes.” God is a much better parent than that, I hope.

But we are on an unchaperoned date here, experiencing real life, separated from God and cast into a world of pain, suffering, and death. And we didn’t even commit the crime! A good parent would have a better purpose behind this than just to exercise His wrath on His creation.

The alternatives and the consequences were fully known to Adam and Eve. They knew what evil was because God told them about the tree and they didn’t ask for an explanation. The sin wasn’t in not knowing the difference, but of being the one that decided what is good and what is evil – something only God can really decide. The lesson wasn’t one on decision-making – it was all about trust, humility and obedience to God who had given them everything they needed.

I’m saying that trust, humility, and obedience were things which had to be learned and that God, in His mercy and for His own purposes, provided us here on earth with the time and place, together with the revelation of Himself thru His Church, to learn them. Adam & Eve weren’t naive but were still fairly easily convinced that they didn’t have everything they needed, and only a creature, having less-than-perfect-wisdom by virtue of being less-than-their-Creator, who alone is perfect, could miss the fact that God had wisely provided all they needed and that there was no reason for-or wisdom in-mistrusting Him.

If this life’s sole purpose is to teach us finally that God is worthy of our trust, humility, and obedience after all, then it’s well worth it. With the grace of God won by Jesus Christ mankind, one of us at a time, can reverse the disorder which exists in creation by turning it back towards its Creator again. The value of this life (with the help of purgatory if this life wasn’t enough to do the job) is that it’s a place where metanoia-change of heart or interior conversion-can take place over* time,* and I believe this change results in something being birthed in us which ends up producing something greater than how we started out and part of that greatness is that we become beings wise enough to freely and consciously make the right choice this time; to love God with our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength. And this rebirth was apparently Gods’ plan or will from the beginning to get what He wanted.

From the CCC:412
But why did God not prevent the first man from sinning? St. Leo the Great responds, "Christ’s inexpressible grace gave us blessings better than those the demon’s envy had taken away."307 And St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, "There is nothing to prevent human nature’s being raised up to something greater, even after sin; God permits evil in order to draw forth some greater good. Thus St. Paul says, ‘Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more’; and the Exsultet sings, ‘O happy fault,. . . which gained for us so great a Redeemer!’"308

 

[AndyF]

And if they didn’t, is it fair for them to be punished for an act whose moral value they didn’t understand? True, God told them not to eat from the tree. But without the knowledge of good and evil, their free choice to disobey God was morally neutral for them, similar to, dare I say it, picking the red or blue crayon.

They still had their conscience.

Andy