Now you're finally getting it. They knew they could not eat it because they were told they could not eat it. Period. God's word is law. Even He though did not explain to them why, it was still true that they would die from eating the fruit.

Then Satan came along and told them something different. He said they would not die. And there was no evidence otherwise. The fruit was, in fact, not harmful of itself.

So, why was it fatal for them to eat it? Because God said not to eat it. It's that simple. Disregarding God's expressed will is the most lethal thing there is.

The problem was not that the fruit was harmful. The problem was that their lack of faith in God, evidenced by their disregard of His plain command, cut them off from the Source of life. And without life, all they had left is death.

Their death was not the result of eating the fruit, per se, but because they disbelieved God's word, as manifested in their disobedience. (Unbelief is always accompanied by disobedience. See Hebrews 3.)

So, in this one case, we find some important concepts:

1) God can forbid something that is not inherently harmful.

2) If you disregard His word on the matter, even if the act itself is not inherently harmful, your lack of trust in Him and His word will prove eternally fatal.

3) Even without explanation, disregarding God's expressed will is very harmful.

So, does God punish?

If you are disobedient, that is proof of your unbelief. That path leads to eternal death, and is filled with suffering all along the way.

If you are a wise parent, and you see your child taking a path that results in untold misery and woe, would you do anything about it? Would you do something that may be painful in the meantime, for the sake of avoiding much greater pain later on? Would you give him a taste of the pain that disobedience always brings, before the eternal death sets in?

God is a wise parent.

BTW, sometimes I give my children commands, not because doing the opposite is inherently harmful, but I want to train them to hear my voice and follow. If they learn to discern my voice and implicitly follow, then I can take them to dangerous places and still keep them safe. But if the staff is not sufficient, I'm not afraid to use the rod.

That's what Moses needed to learn before he was ready to go back to Egypt.

Are you sure it's me?



There are a number of similarities with this and what I wrote. Some differences I see between what I said and what you said is that you left out the following points:

a.Adam and Eve disregarded the circuit of beneficence, which is "the law of life for the universe."

b.The tree was not theirs to eat of. It's true that they would not have known of this except God told them (of course!, how else would they know?) but there is a deeper principle at work than simply what you outlined above.

c.The key lies that Satan told had to do with God's character, which is what the Great Controversy is about.

Regarding your conclusions, these are all based on the premise that there was nothing inherently harmful in partaking of the forbidden fruit. It's true that the fruit was not poisonous, but does the fact that it was not poisonous mean it was inherently not harmful to partake of it?



The context of this is dealing with the temptation of Adam and Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit. From this, we see that eating of this fruit was contrary to the moral law of God. It's easy to see that, since the fruit was not theirs, by eating of the fruit they would be guilty of breaking the first, eighth and tenth commandments (not to mention others). Is there something inherently harmful in breaking these commandments?

So, to consider one of the conclusions, you write that, "If you disregard His word on the matter, even if the act itself is not inherently harmful, your lack of trust in Him and His word will prove eternally fatal." But here the act itself involves theft, so unless theft is not inherently harmful, the assumption here is untrue (which, of course, doesn't mean the conclusion is false).

Also your last point implies that there was no explanation involved in God's command not to eat of the forbidden tree. What's your basis for asserting this? In reading through the PP, I saw quite a bit of explanation referred to.

Regarding 106316, I agree. Regarding 106317, isn't the problem Moses had over reliance on the rod?

Great! There are those who don't believe that God punishes, even for the purpose of avoiding greater pain.


No, that's not what I was talking about. He may have used the rod too much in his younger days, which sent him away from Egypt the first time, but he swung quite a bit the other way. He used neither the staff nor the rod in neglecting to obey God's instructions regarding his son's circumcision. Until he was ready to obey everything God said, he was not safe.

The same is true for us.

Eating fruit is not inherently against God's law. Eating THAT fruit was against God's law. Why? Because God told them not to eat it. That was their sin.


What made them transgressors?

1) distrust of God's goodness
2) disbelief of His word
3) rejection of His authority

Those were the three steps to sin that I outlined in my last sermon. And all of this stems from the fact that God told them not to eat it, but they did anyway.

If you're not sure of that, ask yourself this: If God told them nothing about the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, would it have been sin for A&E to eat it?

BTW, your points - a, b, and c - all stem from the fact that God told them not to eat it, but they did anyway.

Here's what happens to your points if God didn't say anything about that fruit:

a - How can they break the circuit of beneficence? God didn't tell them not to eat it. They thought it was just like every other tree in the garden.

b - Same as a. How could they know that it wasn't theirs to eat? God didn't say anything about it.

c - How would Satan have made his accusations?
Satan: Did God say you must not eat from any tree in the garden?
Eve: No. He said we could eat any fruit; He didn't forbid anything.
Satan: Oh..... Never mind.
Eve: Hey, Adam! Check out this crazy snake over here...

Of course God had to tell them not to eat of the fruit. How else would they have known? I don't understand why you think this is a point worth making.

Yes, as EGW pointed out, distrusting God's goodness was the foundational problem. When they believed the serpent's lie regarding God's character, that led them to distrust God, which led to disobedience and rebellion.

Regarding the punishment, this is certainly something God does. The fiery serpents God "sent" is a perfect illustration of this.

Let me refresh your memory. From post #105304:



Here's the noteworthy sentence from Aaron: If the only thing wrong with sin is that it goes against what God has asked us not to do then God should just stop giving us these annoying rules we are supposed to live by.

Do you still think that is "right on"?

If God didn't give that "annoying rule" of not eating that fruit, would there have been a problem with eating that fruit?