THE ORIGINAL STATE AND FALL
OF MAN
T.P. Simmons
In Eccl. 7:29 we read. "Behold, this only have I found: that
God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."
Nothing is more evident than the two facts mentioned in this passage; viz., the
original uprightness of man and the later fall of man.
I. MAN'S ORIGINAL STATE
1. THE FACT OF IT.
The passage just quoted tells us that God made man upright. This
is evident from the nature of God. Being infinitely holy, he could create only
that which is upright. Then we are told in Gen. 1:31 that God saw everything He
made was very good. This included man. Furthermore, we are told that God made
man in His own image (Gen. 1:27).
2. THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN.
(1) Negatively Considered.
The image of God in man did not consist of a
trinity in man analogous to the divine trinity. We have already discussed this
at length in the chapter on "The Essential Elements of Human Nature."
In this chapter we showed that man consists, not of three parts, but of two.
And if man did consist of three parts, which member of the trinity would the
body of man represent?
(2) Positively Considered.
The image of God in man consisted of two things; viz.,
In this, man had a moral likeness to God. In affirming that
holiness was a part of God's image in man we mean that in the creation of man
God imported to the human faculties a righteous inclination. Holiness must have
been a part of the image of God in man because holiness is the fundamental
attribute of God. That holiness was a part of the original
image of God in man is also confirmed by the fact that it is imparted in the
renewing of God's image in regeneration (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). This is further
confirmed by Eccl. 7.29.
Man's original moral likeness to God consisted of more than mere
innocence. It was positive holiness. This alone can satisfy the statement that man was made in God's image. If innocence were
enough to satisfy this statement, then we should be forced to conclude that
every infant is born in the moral image of God; and this the Scripture denies
(Psa. 51:5; 58:3; Jer. 17:9).
B. Personality.
In this, man has a natural likeness to God. Personality may be
defined as self-consciousness and self-determination. Self consciousness is the
ability of man to know self in distinction from everything else and to analyze
self. Self-determination is the power of making choices in view of motives.
Such choices involve reason and judgment. And, when they are related to moral
matters, they involve conscience.
It is personality that distinguishes man in a natural way from the
brute. The brute has consciousness, but not self-consciousness. No brute ever
thought "I." No brute ever stopped to analyze itself. A brute never
reflects on its own nature in distinction from everything else. It never
engages in introspection. Neither does a brute make choices
in view of motives. Its actions are determined by instincts and by influences
from without. Thus, the brute has determination, but not self-determination.
That a brute is moved by instinct rather than by choice in view of motives is
evidenced by the fact that brutes never improve in their methods of doing
things.
That personality was a part of the original image of God in man is
evidenced by the fact that fallen man, devoid of holiness, is still said to be
in the image of God. See. Gen. 9:6; Jas. 3:9.
II. THE FALL OF MAN
Man's original holiness was not immutable. Mutability is a necessary
characteristic of human nature. Immutability requires infinity of knowledge and
power. Infinity is a characteristic of divinity only. Therefore, since God
wished to create a man and not a god, he made Adam mutable. This made the fall
possible. Let us note, then, with reference to the fall:
1. THE FACT OF IT.
We have the account of the fall in Gen. 3. Thus the fall is a
revealed fact. It is also a fact that is evident, as we have already pointed
out.
2. THE PROBLEM OF IT.
When we come to study the fall of man we are at once faced with
the problem of how such a being as Adam was could fall. Let us note in regard
to this problem:
(1) An Erroneous Explanation.
Sometimes an explanation of the problem of man's fall is attempted
by representing his original state as one of mere equilibrium in which it was
as easy to choose the wrong as it was to choose the right. In other words, the will was in a state of indifference, and was as likely to
act one way as the other. Such a notion as this reduces man's original state to
one of mere innocence instead of positive holiness. We have already touched
upon this and trust that we have shown that mere innocence does not satisfy the
statement that man was created in the image of God.
(2) The Right Explanation.
The fall of man cannot be accounted for simply on the basis of
Adam's freedom of choice. Neither can it be accounted for on the basis of
natural desire, nor upon the basis of the fact that our first parents were
deceived by the devil. These facts are aptly stated by
Strong as follows: "The mere power of choice does not explain the fact of
an unholy choice. The fact of natural desire for sensuous and intellectual
gratification does not explain how this desire came to be inordinate. Nor does
it throw light upon the matter to resolve this fall into a deception of our first
parents by Satan. Their yielding to such deception presupposes distrust of God
and alienation from Him. Satan's fall, moreover, since it
must have been uncaused by temptation from without, is more difficult to
explain than Adam's fall" (Systematic Theology, p. 304).
However the author fails to see the difficulty expressed by Strong
in saying that "we must acknowledge that we cannot understand
how the first unholy emotion could have found lodgement in a mind that was set
supremely upon God, nor how temptation could overcome a soul in which there
were no unholy propensities to which it could appeal" (ibid, p. 304).
The author believes that in the following facts we have a logical
and satisfactory explanation of the fall of man:
A. Adam was mutable.
This fact we have already discussed.
B. Being mutable, he could remain steadfast in his original state
only by the power of God.
See chapter on "The Relation of God to the Universe."
Nothing remains in its own power unchanged except that which is immutable.
C. God could justly and holily permit Adam to fall if it pleased
Him.
Since God has permitted sin, none can object to the permission of
the fall except those who will criticize God.
D. God, having chosen to permit the fall, withheld His sustaining
power from Adam and Adam's moral nature became disordered, just as the whole
universe would fall to pieces if God were to withdraw His sustaining and
preserving power for one instant.
(1) The Headship of Adam.
When Adam experienced the corruption of his nature, he stood not
as a mere individual; but as the natural head of the race. The
natural headship of Adam is clearly taught in the fifth chapter of Romans. His
headship is not presented there as a mere federal headship. Adam did not merely
sin for us as would be the case if be were the mere federal head of the race;
we sinned in him (Rom. 5:12)
A. Upon Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve suffered the corruption of their nature, which
brought both natural and spiritual death upon them.
B. Upon the Race.
The total effect of the fall upon the race is the corruption of
the nature of the race, which brings the race into a state of spiritual death and makes it subject to physical death.
The descendents of Adam are held accountable, not for the overt
act of Adam in partaking of the forbidden fruit; but for the inward apostasy of
his nature from God. We are not personally responsible for the overt act of
Adam because his overt act was the act of his own individual will. But our
nature, being one with his, did corrupt itself in the
apostasy of his nature. Hence the effect of the fall upon the race does not
consist of both personal guilt for the overt act of Adam and the corruption of
the nature of the race. We are not responsible for anything that we cannot
repent of when quickened by the Spirit of God. Is any man today convicted of
Adam's sin of partaking of the forbidden fruit? But we do feel convicted of,
and we can and do repent of, the corruption of our natures,
which manifests itself in rebellion against God and in personal transgressions.
We do not believe the Scripture teaches more than this in regard to the effects
of the fall upon the race. For a discussion of John 1:29 in regard to this, see
chapter on atonement.
In speaking of the corruption of human nature,
the author does not refer to a corruption of the substance or essence of the
soul. The word "nature" is used here in the sense of inherent
character, disposition, natural instincts, desires, and appetites. The fall
corrupted human nature in the sense of introducing moral and religious
disorder. Or, to use the words of Strong, we may say that the fall resulted in
"the depraving of all those powers which, in their united action with
reference to moral and religious truth, we call man's moral
and religious nature; or, in other words, the blinding of his intellect, the
corruption of his affections, and the enslavement of his will" (Systematic
Theology), p. 307).
4. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADAM AND EVE IN THE FALL.
The Genesis account makes no vital difference between Adam and Eve
in the fall. But a distinction is clearly brought out in 1 Tim. 2:14. Here it
is said that Eve was deceived, but that Adam was not. This means that Eve
entered into the transgression because she was made to think that God's warning
was not true, and that she would not die as a penalty for partaking of the
forbidden fruit. But with Adam it was different. He did not
doubt God's Word. He sinned because he preferred to be cast out of Eden with
his wife, rather than remain in Eden without his wife. Oftentimes it is thought
that the above facts attach greater guilt to the sin of the woman than to the
sin of the man. But just the reverse is true. Adam sinned through the willful
and conscious choice of the fellowship of his wife, rather than the fellowship
of God. No such thing was true of Eve's sin.
5. WHY DID GOD PERMIT THE FALL?
It was not that God was compelled to permit it. He is a sovereign
and does everything freely. And it was not because of any lack
of power. Although God made man mutable, which was necessary, as we have shown,
yet He could have preserved man from sin without the violation of man's will or
any principle. We can give but one answer to the above question. It is that God
permitted the fall in order to provide the way for the glorification of His Son
in redemption.
6. THE FALL AND THE HOLINESS OF GOD.
Perhaps the carnal reason will never be satisfied with any
explanation of the fall in relation to the holiness of God. How could a holy
God permit sin when He had the full power to prevent it? That He had this power
cannot be doubted. And while the carnal reason may never be
satisfied, yet faith in the Word of God satisfies the new mind that the
permission of sin by God is perfectly consistent with His holiness. If we had
the power to prevent sin and did not do it, we should be guilty of evil. But
God is different from us. We are dependent, and, therefore; responsible. He is
independent, and therefore, responsible to no one. When we know as we are
known, then we shall be able to understand fully how the
permission of sin is perfectly compatible with the perfect holiness of God.